Programming. Electronics. Open-source. Pseudo-random opinions.

Politics

Research and argumentative challenges can do amazing things. As a result of writing my first rebuttal to Mr. Farris, I have learned quite a bit about Ron Paul, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Incorporation Doctrine. I have even come to believe a couple of things that, even just a few days ago, I would have completely disagreed with (some of what I wrote in the original post demonstrates this). I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong, and I was definitely wrong about a couple of important things here. So, let me restate my argument according to what I now understand to be correct. I felt obligated to write this because I believe I misrepresented Dr. Paul’s positions on some critical points regarding constitutional authority. This was unintentional, but it’s still inaccurate, and I wanted to set the record straight.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to overcome is to realize that the Bill of Rights was never intended to rewrite each individual state’s constitution. If it had been, the states never would have signed on in the first place, since in general they were extremely concerned with maintaining their own sovereignty. The Bill of Rights was crafted to make sure that the new federal government would not be able to exert its own control over the citizens of each state; it was not created as a universally applied set of rules which all states had to adopt themselves. If this had been the case, state constitutions would not need to include separate but similar provisions of their own, especially the states that joined the union after the Constitution was ratified. But it is easy to see that this is not what happened.

The rights recognized and protected by the Bill of Rights are important, and it would not be a bad thing if each state recognized and protected the same rights. The Incorporation Doctrine has largely allowed this to happen, and Mr. Farris thinks this is a good thing. Dr. Paul sees it as a problem because the 14th Amendment doesn’t actually say what the Supreme Court has interpreted it to say, and this has opened up the door for arbitrary laws giving power to the federal government that it was never supposed to have. The 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause was one of the primary legal bases for the Roe v. Wade ruling, and it is one of the arguments used to allow birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

The main question is whether the due process required of the states by the 14th Amendment is merely procedural, as the wording indicates, or substantive, which includes a whole lot more than just ensuring equal protection and keeping within a common and unbiased legal system. The substantive due process debate is pretty serious, and the answer has significant implications about the real scope of government power. Ron Paul virtually always tends toward the small government side of any argument, and the Incorporation Doctrine debate is no exception.

There are a number of core questions to answer here, and the simplest way to highlight the differences between Michael Farris and Ron Paul is to explore how each of them has answered these questions. The first half of the questions I’ve included below has to do with a philosophical ideals (largely irrelevant in the legal world, but important to understand their opinions), and the second half has to do with the actual legal authority. This “Should vs. Does” side-by-side comparison will demonstrate some rather critical differences in what each each of these two men believe about the optimal scope of government power.

Should the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution apply to the states?

Farris: Yes. That’s one the primary uses of the 14th Amendment.

Paul: Not as written, maintaining the correct view of separation of state and federal authority. That’s not what the states signed up for, and for the Supreme Court to use the 14th Amendment selectively as a lever to expand federal authority beyond what is clearly written (including the federal protection of some “rights” not recognized or specified anywhere in the Constitution) is a usurpation of power, even if the pragmatic outcome is favorable in some cases. “The ends justify the means” is a very dangerous line of reasoning to defend such actions.

Should the rights recognized and protected in the Bill of Rights also be recognized and protected in each individual state?

Farris: Yes, and using federal power and Supreme Court precedents is a fine way to make sure that happens.

Paul: Yes, but the states have their own constitutions and legal systems to bring this about. All of the rights recognized and protected in the US Constitution are good, and in many cases they are mirrored by individual state constitutions. But arbitrarily forcing federal restrictions onto state governments is outside of legitimate federal authority. If state constitutions are inadequate in some cases, they should be changed on a state-by-state basis. Alternatively, if the states wish to ratify a federal amendment that clearly applies some or all of the Bill of Rights as written to their own state governments, that is also fine. But using the 14th Amendment to this end is not safe or desirable.

Should homeschooling be a legal option for parents?

Farris: Yes.

Paul: Yes.

Should the federal government be able to specifically prohibit homeschooling?

Farris: No.

Paul: No.

Should the federal government be able to specifically legalize homeschooling?

Farris: (Unknown. He may agree with Dr. Paul here, or he may believe the federal government has more authority that what Dr. Paul believes.)

Paul: No, at least not without an amendment. The US Constitution is silent on the issue of education as-is, and therefore has no authority to pass laws explicitly focused on education. Any action not specifically prohibited by the Constitution is, at the federal level, already legal. To legalize homeschooling at the federal level in such a way that it has legitimate specific power over the states would require an amendment.

Should individual states be able to specifically prohibit homeschooling?

Farris: Definitely not.

Paul: Technically yes, but only if there is not sufficient protection against this (e.g. right to privacy) in their governing documents. If there is no such protection, this should be fixed with an amendment to the state constitution, effected by the people of that state, not through a power grab by the federal government. [Note: this opinion directly contradicts something I wrote in my original post about Dr. Paul’s application of the federal 4th Amendment.]

Should individual states be able to specifically legalize homeschooling?

Farris: Yes. (Qualifiers not assumed; he may agree with Dr. Paul on this point.)

Paul: Yes, provided that power is specified in their constitution and there is no legitimate federal control over the states in this area (which there currently is not). For states that have no authority over education specified in their governing documents, then such a ruling would be largely pointless—since the default assumption for any action not expressly prohibited is that it is legal—but it would also be an unconstitutional expansion of state authority.

Does the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution apply to the states?

Farris: Most of it does, through the precedents established by the Incorporation Doctrine and the 14th Amendment, and this is good.

Paul: Most of it does, through the precedents established by the Incorporation Doctrine and the 14th Amendment, but this is very dangerous because it is an arbitrary and selective expansion of federal power by means of Supreme Court rulings, which is not the correct way to change the scope of federal authority.

Does the federal government have the authority to specifically prohibit homeschooling nationally?

Farris: No.

Paul: No.

Does the federal government have the authority to specifically legalize homeschooling nationally?

Farris: Yes, through clever applications of the 14th Amendment. (I believe this is an accurate representation of Mr. Farris’ opinion, based on his post.)

Paul: Legally yes, because of the precedents established by the Incorporation Doctrine. But this is unconstitutional and a bad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and constitutionally this is still outside of federal jurisdiction. For or against, the federal government has no legitimate authority in the area of education.

Do individual states have the authority to specifically prohibit homeschooling?

Farris: No, the 14th Amendment means this is not possible.

Paul: Constitutionally yes, but practically no, due to the precedents set by the Incorporation Doctrine to fully incorporate the federal right to free speech and right to privacy to the states. If state and federal powers are separated according to the original intent, then if the state’s constitution gives them the power to control education in this way, they can do it—but not if there is no specific power given, or there is another state-level provision that more generally prohibits control of this kind. [Note: this opinion partly contradicts something I wrote in my original post.]

Do individual states have the authority to specifically legalize homeschooling?

Farris: Yes. (Qualifiers not assumed; he may agree with Dr. Paul on this point.)

Paul: Yes, if such provisions for specifically controlling education exist in the state constitution.

So, let’s revisit the statements that Mr. Farris makes about Dr. Paul, and analyze them in light of these new clarifications.

“Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles that the homeschooling movement has used successfully to defend our freedom to teach our own children.”

Analysis: Ron Paul believes that using the 14th Amendment to expand federal authority beyond what is written in the Constitution is the wrong approach, even if it has been done in the past to bring about the protection of things (like homeschooling) that he would like to see protected. Mr. Farris has used this very argument in his cases, so Dr. Paul’s view that it is technically an unconstitutional approach that actually opens the door to even bigger government does put him at odds with Mr. Farris. However, to say that Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles is disingenuous. He is in complete agreement with the desired outcome, but he is an enemy of an argumentative technique that by definition expands the scope of federal power beyond what was originally intended.

“In the 1920s, the State of Oregon banned all private education. This Oregon law was challenged as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibited states from banning private education because this overrode parental rights in an unconstitutional fashion. If Ron Paul’s philosophy were applied to this case, then Oregon’s law would have prevailed under the 10th Amendment.”

Analysis: Ron Paul’s view of the US Constitution would indeed have prevented the 14th Amendment from overruling the 10th Amendment, and based only on that argument, the Oregon law would have remained intact. However, what’s to say that a different challenge based on the limited authority of the state government wouldn’t have succeeded? I am not a lawyer, but a cursory search through relevant sections of Oregon’s state constitution does not indicate that they have the right to impose such a law, particularly in light of the rights guaranteed by Sections 1, 3, 8, 9, and 20, which respectively guarantee natural rights of citizens over their government, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of speech, privacy, and equal protection under the law. Are these really not enough? Is it truly necessary to run to the arbitrary and dubious expansion of federal authority to get what you want?

Mr. Farris lists two more examples of court cases that leveraged the 14th Amendment to protect homeschooling, one in Michigan and one in California. Although the state constitutions are different, the fundamental argument is the same. When something is going wrong within a particular state, the constitutional and safe long-term solution should not involve using arbitrary interpretations of a specific clause as a wedge to get just enough extra federal power to force the state to comply with rules that were originally written specifically for the federal government alone.

“Home schooling would be legal in about 3 states in this country today if Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution was actually practiced by the Supreme Court.”

Analysis: Mr. Farris is engaging in blatant hyperbole. There is absolutely no way of knowing that what he predicts would happen, little evidence to suggest it, and a great many arguments to be made for the opposing view. A comprehensive understanding of Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution combined with his obvious desire to remove government from education wherever possible suggests that Mr. Farris’ frightening hypothesis is, at best, extremely unlikely.

“Do you agree with Ron Paul that the states have the exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling and the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool?”

Analysis: Ron Paul does believe that the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool, or at least that it shouldn’t, since I’m sure he recognizes the legal precedents already in place along these lines. This much I will readily admit now, in stark contrast to what I wrote before. But on this topic, I cannot come to any other conclusion in light of a strict reading of the Constitution, combined with a firm belief in small government on all levels. However, Ron Paul does not automatically believe that the states have exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling. He only believes that the federal government has no authority over it, for better or worse. It is simply outside of federal jurisdiction.

But just because the federal government doesn’t have the power to legalize (or prohibit) homeschooling, that doesn’t mean that states by definition do have that power. As in the case of Oregon, most states have their own significant list of rights recognized and protected within in their own constitutions. Whenever a legal issue arises concerning education in a particular state, that is where the battle should be fought.

Running to the federal government for protection when doing so requires an inherent expansion of power is the epitome of nanny-statism. This concept is diametrically opposed to Ron Paul’s entire platform.

“How can you support a candidate who denies the very constitutional principle that our movement used to win our freedom?”

Analysis: if that candidate decries this “constitutional principle” on the grounds that it’s not actually constitutional but is instead a dangerous move towards expansive federal power, it’s actually not that difficult. Mr. Farris’ position on this, right or wrong, is not a settled issue. Ron Paul’s argument against it is completely consistent with the rest of his views on the Constitution. He believes that the ends do not necessarily justify the means, and the means in this case are legitimately worrisome.

“Supporting Ron Paul in the name of homeschooling is like supporting Barack Obama in the name of reducing the national debt.”

Analysis: that’s just low. Straw man, guilt by analogy, and invalid premise all in one sentence. It’s entirely unfair and he must know it. Obama has demonstrated very little desire, absolutely no ability, and no reasonable intent to reduce the national debt (though a tremendous ability to do the opposite).

On the other hand, Ron Paul clearly believes that homeschooling not only should be legal, but is actually desirable. He clearly believes that parents have the ultimate right and responsibility to train their children. He clearly believes that getting the government completely out of education, and parents back into it, is the best solution. But he also clearly believes that the government “solution” to any problem of this nature usually just makes a bigger problem, and looking to the federal government to solve a state problem is not only unconstitutional, but it is also dangerous. Mr. Farris does not hold this view, and seems content to manipulate a vague federal law to exercise authority over states—as long as the argument agrees with his morality, anyway. I’m sure he is not happy that the same line of reasoning was used to allow abortion on a federal level.

Michael Farris is still wrong about Ron Paul.

Michael Farris, Homeschooling, and Ron Paul Redux was last modified: March 14th, 2017 by Jeff Rowberg

I just came across this particular Facebook post from Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Patrick Henry College. It doesn’t surprise me at all given his previous posts regarding his belief that Ron Paul is dangerous and unsuitable for the presidency. While he has done great things for home schooling in this country, Farris is someone who believes that Lincoln was justified in his position and actions against the southern states before and during the Civil War (which seems difficult to comprehend in light of the way Lincoln trashed the Constitution, judicial system, due process, and the 10th Amendment during his presidency). I say this based on personal correspondence that my dad had with him a few years back, along with his own published writings.

[1/12/2012 @ 10:45pm: I have learned some new things about Ron Paul, the Constitution, and my arguments over the last 72 hours. If I were to write this article right now, I would change some of it in a few significant ways. But since a couple thousand people have already read this and many have linked to it, it wouldn’t be fair to simply modify the article, even if I no longer agree with everything I wrote. So, for the most complete view of my argument along with its history, feel free to read this including the two updates at the bottom, but please also read the revised analysis and rebuttal, Michael Farris, Homeschooling, and Ron Paul Redux. It is more thorough and deals with other underlying legal issues. I do still believe Michael Farris is wrong about Ron Paul on Homeschooling.]

“Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles that the homeschooling movement has used successfully to defend our freedom to teach our own children. He recently said that he does not believe that the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment. He said this is an abortion context (which proves that he is not politically pro-life) but, let’s examine what this means in a homechooling context.”

He then explains that this means that Dr. Paul believes that the 10th Amendment gives states the right to prohibit or regulate homeschooling, by virtue of the fact that Farris has leveraged the 14th amendment to win some of his cases:

“The case I won before the Supreme Court of Michigan for homeschooling freedom was based on the 14th Amendment. The federal constitutional principles of religious freedom and parental rights overrode the power of Michigan to require homeschoolers to all be certified teachers.”

Then, he makes this patently false claim, presumably to scare us:

“Home schooling would be legal in about 3 states in this country today if Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution was actually practiced by the Supreme Court.”

And finally, he asks this very loaded question, which sums up the straw-man argument:

“Do you agree with Ron Paul that the states have the exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling and the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool?”

Yikes. How could any self-respecting homeschooler, or any advocate of civil liberties for that matter, support such a horrific concept? (I say “loaded question” in this case because the wording only allows him to be correct, and he’s actually asking us whether or not we are misguided idiots.)

The problem is that he has either twisted or misunderstood what Ron Paul actually believes and clearly says. First, let’s examine the particular part of the 14th Amendment in question, known as the “due process” clause:

“No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

And here’s the full text of the short and sweet 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

And now, Dr. Paul’s 10th vs. 14th Amendment quote that serves as the basis for the argument:

“The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ … We should allow our republican system of government to function as our founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.”

This was a written statement offering clarification, included as an addendum to his recent signature of the Personhood Pledge. It was clearly written with respect to abortion and not homeschooling, though at least Farris does admit that much. Ron Paul clearly believes that life begins at conception and therefore that abortion is killing a child. The individual rights of the unborn are no different from the individual rights of any other person. Abortion ought to be subject to the exact same laws that “regular” killing is, and these laws are written and enforced on a state level. However, the federal government DOES exist, as he stated, to protect rights, including the right to life. Therefore, no state can make a law that allows murder.

Farris would have us believe that Ron Paul thinks the choice for whether to allow homeschooling should be left up to the states. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s Dr. Paul’s official position.

Notable excerpts:

“Ron Paul believes no nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family does. … Congressman Paul wants parents to have the freedom to choose the best educational options for their children, and his commitment to ensuring homeschooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any other Presidential candidate. As President, he will veto any legislation that encroaches on homeschooling parents’ rights. Returning control of education to parents and teachers on the local level is the centerpiece of Ron Paul’s education agenda.”

This is consistent with the volume of material written and spoken by Dr. Paul. Remember that he wants to (and has always wanted to) completely shut down the Department of Education, without delegating any of its roles to the states (as he would do with some other federal departments).

In Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution, contrary to what Farris says, any attempt whatsoever by either the state governments or the federal government to try to limit or otherwise control the legality of homeschooling is a clear violation not of the 14th Amendment, but of the 4th Amendment: the right to privacy. While the 14th Amendment is not bad, the 4th Amendment makes it mostly irrelevant in the case of homeschooling. The Constitution provides absolutely zero authority for the federal government to affect education. Presumably, individual state constitutions do not either, but if they do, that is a separate issue to be addressed as that would put states in violation of the 4th Amendment as well.

The 4th Amendment provides a strong foundation for keeping government entirely out of our personal lives until and unless we violate the rights of someone else (which, as Dr. Paul states, it is the role of the federal government to prohibit nationally and of the state government to punish locally).

“We can’t tell you not to teach your kids at home unless we do it in a way that maintains equality under the law.”

…while the 4th Amendment says this:

“We can’t tell you not to teach your kids at home.”

Which one is more reassuring?

As to Farris’ claim that, with Dr. Paul’s interpretation, homeschooling “would be legal in about 3 states,” it is easy to see that with Dr. Paul’s interpretation homeschooling would be legal in every state, with zero government restrictions. The 4th Amendment is extremely important to Ron Paul.

And as for his final question:

“Do you agree with Ron Paul that the states have the exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling and the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool?”

Ron Paul clearly does not believe that the states have any authority, let alone exclusive authority, over the legality of homeschooling. And, strictly speaking, the 14th Amendment provides no such right to homeschool. That’s what the 4th Amendment does, combined with the utter absence of educational authority specified in Article 1, Section 8. The 14th Amendment, on the other hand, merely says they can’t take away any rights without due process. [Note: see Updates #1 and #2 below for further discussion of this point, which I would clarify differently, having done more research.]

However, I believe that Mike Farris also opposes Ron Paul on his drug policies, which indicates that perhaps he does not appreciate such a comprehensive, all-encompassing understanding of the 4th Amendment in the first place.

For some additional arguments and perspectives, check out these posts from others:

Update #1 – 1/9/2012 @ 8:30am

Michael Farris makes the following argument against using the 4th Amendment:

“The 4th Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. It is the 4th Amendment that we use to stop social service agencies from invading people’s homes. But, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment does not apply directly to the states. It only applies through the 14th Amendment. Anyone who claims that the 4th Amendment will protect homeschooling against state governments but that it is improper to use the 14th Amendment is simply and totally wrong and demonstrates that they know absolutely nothing about this area of law. Moreover, the 4th Amendment has nothing to say to any level of government about issues arising from compulsory attendance laws. That is straight up 14th Amendment issues with a bit of 1st Amendment thrown in on the side.”

This is misleading, particularly with respect to homeschooling. The 4th Amendment has indeed been incorporated against the states. Much, but not all, of the Bill of Rights are forced against the states via the Incorporation Doctrine. This is not the same as using the 14th Amendment as a legal basis (let alone the only legal basis) for applying the 4th Amendment to the states. From the linked page about the Incorporation Doctrine:

Rep. John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, advocated that the Fourteenth applied the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way. Until the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers’ intent should control the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham’s congressional testimony. Although the Adamson Court declined to adopt Black’s interpretation, the Court during the following twenty-five years employed a doctrine of selective incorporation that succeeded in extending to the States almost of all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights.

This is not at odds with Ron Paul’s position on the 4th, 10th, and 14th Amendments with respect to either homeschooling or abortion. However, it is at odds with Mr. Farris’ position on the 14th Amendment.

However, it is admittedly true that a plain, logical reading of the 4th Amendment does not indicate anything about compulsory attendance. This is a separate issue. The federal government has no Constitutional authority in the realm of education, and so cannot force you to attend school any more legitimately than they can force you to purchase health insurance. However, there may be room in this area for individual state constitutions to require some kind of compulsory public education, as long as that is clearly specified as part of that state’s authority. They still may not prohibit homeschooling (the core of the argument here), but if the state does include compulsory public education as part of their governing document, then it is up to the citizens of that state to change that legally, or move to a different state where there is no such requirement.

On a different note, Mr. Farris has said that he is pursuing a possible debate/discussion directly with Dr. Paul, which is an excellent way to resolve (or at least clarify) this whole thing. I hope they actually do it.

Update #2 – 1/9/2012 @ 1:15pm

I am continuing to learn here, and I have to be up-front with what I have discovered about the previously mentioned Incorporation Doctrine. Ron Paul apparently does not believe this is a wise approach to expanding federal power, even though in many cases it has been used in ways where I (and he) would agree in principle with the outcome. If individual rights (life, liberty, property ownership, free speech, privacy, etc.) are universal and unalienable, then it seems like a good thing to enforce them universally. But doing so by reinterpreting the federal Bill of Rights so as to apply them to the states, which the states clearly did not sign up for in the beginning, may not be the right way to do it. It is still an expansion of federal authority beyond what was written, effected by the Supreme Court. I believe this is not allowed, given logically and thoroughly consistent reading of the Constitution as written.

It seems that many of the states have their own equivalent Bill-of-Rights-style language in their governing documents, and this is where the true authority is. The federal government has limitations on itself, while it has virtual no limitations on the states from a strict literal reading. The Incorporation Doctrine is a bit dangerous in this light, since it allows for an expansion of federal powers beyond what was written—even if, in many cases, this has been used in an arguably good way.

This does not change the constitutionality of federal interference in education, but it does affect the scope of what individual states can theoretically do (depending on their own respective state constitutions). My argument is largely the same, but leaves more potential for fighting battles on the state level. Federal legislation regulating, allowing, or prohibiting homeschooling still has no constitutional authority.

This is largely a moot point at this time, since the Incorporation Doctrine is alive and well—whether or not it should be from my or Ron Paul’s perspective. But it is important to note that this doctrine will not be used as a central part of a Ron Paul administration, at least not if he has anything to do with it. Given his strong pro-homeschooling perspective, the precedents that already exist, his desire to eliminate the Department of Education, and the growing social acceptance in general of homeschooling, I don’t believe this will be a significant problem.

Why Michael Farris is Wrong about Ron Paul on Homeschooling was last modified: March 14th, 2017 by Jeff Rowberg

Please vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming primary election, and again in the general election in November.

Even if you have already decided who you want to vote for, even if you are predisposed to think Ron Paul is weird, ridiculous, or crazy, please take 20 minutes to read what I have written here to see if it makes you think. He is not just “the least bad option” among mostly poor choices, as we usually see every four years; Ron Paul is fundamentally and unequivocally different in very important ways.

Update 12/10/2011: William Stearns has provided some excellent additional resources in the Comments section. Be sure to check them out as well.

In short…

More detail is given for each of these points below, but here they are:

He’s been totally consistent in his principles and his message over the last 30 years.

His actions invariably follow his words.

He stands ready to give a well-reasoned, principled answer to even the most difficult questions.

He does not pander to voters or special interests.

He predicted the housing crisis years before it happened.

He predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks years before they happened.

He has no dark past or flip-flops for the media to dredge up.

He has specific plans for how to deal with every one of the problems listed below.

He firmly believes in a small government strictly bounded by the Constitution.

He has the strongest grassroots support of any candidate by far, and his supporters throw their heart and soul into spreading his message.

It will be exceedingly difficult to lay out a complete argument in an easily digestible form, but I will do my best to keep each point brief without sacrificing clarity, and simply provide links for you to read more on any particular topic if you would like more info. Watching or reading all of the additional linked material will likely take a couple of hours, but it is absolutely worthwhile if you are interested in more information. You may not agree with all of Ron Paul’s positions, but if you are willing to read through all of this, ask yourself how any other candidate stacks up against Ron Paul in the areas where the President actually has power to do anything. I can only see one truly beneficial choice.

We have some big problems to fix

I’ll start with something we probably all agree on: there is something wrong with this country. Regardless of why you think that is, or exactly what you think is wrong, there are problems to deal with, and they are not insignificant. Here are some of the most critical ones from my perspective:

Massive and rapidly increasing national debt

Undeclared and economically draining endless wars

Extremely high unemployment

Potential terror threats to the US

Housing market crisis

Rising costs of healthcare

Illegal immigration

Corruption in government

Depending on your focus and how specific you want to be, I’m sure you can come up with many more to add to that list. None of these problems arose overnight, and they cannot by solved overnight either, but unless they are dealt with, this country will continue its downward spiral. Some analysts claim that the 2008 recession is over, that we’re on the road to recovery; however, I see no real reason to believe that’s true while we stay on the course we are on. We are far more likely to fall into an even deeper depression, because the government and Federal Reserve are both doing the same thing they did before and during the Great Depression, and it isn’t going to work any better this time around.

Why Ron Paul?

Ron Paul certainly gets the short end of the stick from most media outlets. It has been a tremendous uphill battle for him to get his views out to the general public, and he has only had some success recently due to a huge concerted effort from his rapidly growing individual support and the technological wizardry that is the internet. So, it is very likely that whatever opinion you have of him has been either entirely or primarily shaped by people who don’t like him, his opinions, or his supporters. I cannot pretend to be unbiased myself, but I will say that I have learned not to take anything at face value, and my own defense of Ron Paul here comes from a whole lot of research, debate, and critical thinking. Even so, I am willing (eager, even) to be challenged on any point, for the sake of learning and spreading the truth.

Please note that my reasons for supporting him have absolutely nothing at all to do with his party affiliation. Don’t let the fact that he’s trying for the Republican nomination preclude any further consideration; he is certainly not a “Republican” in the contemporary sense. That being said, here are my own reasons for believing that Ron Paul is hands-down the best candidate:

He’s been totally consistent in his principles and his message over the last 30 years.(Watch Ron Paul: The Consistent Candidate on YouTube, length is 1m 10s)
Ron Paul has always advocated small government and individual liberty and responsibility. He has been in Congress (with short gaps) since 1976, holding office for 12 two-year terms. He ran for President in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket, and his message then was the same as it is today. He does not hold simultaneous mutually exclusive views (cognitive dissonance) as many politicians do, and he does not change his mind or his message to suit his audience or the political climate. He supported Reagan when Reagan promoted deregulation, spending cuts, and a reduction of the government (which was unpopular at the time), but he even cut off that association (!) when Reagan started reneging on his own campaign promises. He is still saying exactly the same things he said when he first entered politics, for exactly the same reasons, only now he has a lot more history proving the validity of his message. No other candidate can touch this record.

His actions invariably follow his words.(Watch Who is Ron Paul? In 2 minutes on YouTube, length is 2m 1s)
Ron Paul is opposed to the expansion of government power, meddling in foreign affairs, wasteful spending, subsidies, bailouts, and entitlement programs. While he ran his own OB/GYN practice, one of the very few rules was that patients who could not afford to pay would still be served (for free!), but none of the doctors on staff were allowed to take any government funds even when they were available. This is the epitome of integrity. (Read Before He Delivered For Voters, Paul Delivered Babies on NPR)

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket (an excursion for the purpose of pleasure at public or company expense).
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the PATRIOT Act (which is unconstitutional and unnecessary). (Watch Reality Check: Has the Patriot Act thwarted 42 terror attacks?, length is 4m 29s)
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He wants to abolish the TSA, a reactionary and corrupt group that has completely failed to improve our safety and has utterly shredded the 4th Amendment.
He wants to abolish the IRS and income tax entirely (which is possible budget-wise after government spending is significantly reduced).

He does not participate in the congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

He has been the lone “No” vote against all 434 of his colleagues in the House numerous times, voting on principle against things that the government does not have Constitutional authority to do, regardless of how nice it might sound on paper. Ron Paul holds strongly to a very specific set of principles, and everything he does is filtered and bounded by those principles without compromise. Try finding anything close to this level of integrity among any other candidate running today (or in recent history for that matter). You won’t be able to do it.

He stands ready to give a well-reasoned, principled answer to even the most difficult questions.
Ron Paul does not need a teleprompter. He can answer just about any question you throw at him, in any situation, provided both you and he have the time. This is the result of having a clear set of core principles from which you can easily extrapolate at least the basic structure from any viewpoint–even the ones that you haven’t already spent time thinking much about (though I am pretty sure that Ron Paul has spent a considerable amount of time formulating many detailed answers to previous and potential questions).

He believes firmly in individual liberty, the self-ownership principle, and the non-aggression principle. (Watch The Philosophy of Liberty on YouTube, length is 8m 16s) In a nutshell, he believes that property rights are paramount, each person has the highest claim of ownership (among other people) of their own body and life, the initiation of force (a.k.a. aggression) is wrong, and defense against aggression is justified. These basic principles are further augmented by a strict interpretation of the Constitution and its role in limiting the federal government. From this foundation, questions about whether government should or should not do any given action in any specific case are usually relatively simple to answer.

In the exceptionally rare cases where Ron Paul does not have an answer ready, he will not hesitate to tell you so. He does not give his opinions when he does not actually have reasons to back them up.

He does not pander to voters or special interests.
Ron Paul has kept to his principles in the face of absolute opposition from his colleagues in Congress. (For clarity, note that “pandering” is the act of expressing one’s views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal.) As mentioned before, he has frequently been the only “no” vote against bills that had otherwise full congressional (and even popular) support, because he firmly believed those bills fell outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. He has also clearly stated very unpopular views on national television, namely in the GOP debates during the 2008 election cycle and the current 2012 cycle, which have resulted in boos from the audience. He does not apologize for these statements afterwards because he holds to their being solidly grounded in reality, logic, and principle.

He predicted the housing crisis years before it happened.(Watch Ron Paul Calls the Housing Collapse in 2003 on YouTube, length is 5m 39s)
This is absolutely critical because it demonstrates a clear understanding of economics, far beyond that of people who didn’t see the crash coming. It was his study of the Austrian economic theories of Mises and Hayek during his time as a doctor that first got him interested in politics, and his particular concern with the consequences of moving completely away from the gold standard in 1971 which made him run for Congress in the first place. (Watch Nixon Ends Bretton Woods International Monetary System on YouTube, length is 4m 6s) He has been warning of the “boom and bust” business cycle for decades, something which is primarily brought about by the manipulation of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. None of the other candidates saw this coming despite the many warning signs to those who knew enough to look. Ron Paul clearly articulated exactly why such a crisis was inevitable given the current monetary policy, and exactly what had to be done to keep it from happening (or at least to keep it from being as bad as it has become). Nobody listened.

When the Federal Reserve creates easy credit by keeping interest rates artificially low, it is natural that investors throw caution to the wind and create bubbles (or “booms”) in a particular market sector. Interest rates are supposed to be a market-regulated level of the time-value of money. If lots of people want to borrow, then interest rates should go up. If nobody wants to borrow, then interest rates should go down. These fluctuations are normal in a free market. People need to compete for investors’ funds by coming up with projects that promise a very good return. If you don’t have a very promising project, then you won’t be able to find investors. But the Federal Reserve suppresses this by creating more money out of thin air, which increases the supply and lowers the price (a.k.a. interest rates in this case). This makes lots of people invest this newly printed money in projects that are much, much more risky than they would normally accept. This is what ultimately caused so many Americans to go crazy buying houses that they couldn’t afford–the credit was too easy to get.

If the Federal Reserve had not manipulated the interest rate, then the banks would have had a harder time getting funds to loan out, and subsequently would have been much more reluctant to loan their funds to customers who might not be making wise investments. Construction companies wouldn’t have directed so many resources to building new homes that people couldn’t really afford, since the demand wouldn’t have been there. This is how the market is supposed to work. Instead we had government intervention that pushed housing prices artificially high. This can only be resolved by letting the bubble “pop,” so to speak. The malinvestment needs to settle and be re-valued at real market prices. This is not a fun process, but it is the only real solution.

He predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks years before they happened.(Watch Ron Paul Predicts Terrorist Attacks in 1997, 1999, and 2001 on YouTube, length is 2m 47s)This is also absolutely critical because it demonstrates a clear understanding of the effects of our foreign policy. Whether or not you believe that what we are doing in foreign countries is right, Ron Paul was at least correct about the consequences. The concept of “blowback” is well-documented and vetted by the CIA and the findings of the 9/11 Commission. It also makes perfect sense. If we continually meddle in the affairs of foreign countries, our actions will make enemies. These enemies might not like us in the first place anyway due to ideological reasons (fundamental Islam is anything but perfectly peaceful), but it is far, far more likely that our ideological enemies will turn to acts of terrorism if we invade their lands, topple their governments and replace them with US-friendly puppets, sanction their trade, tell them what they may and may not do, and of course repeatedly kill innocent civilians through carelessness, bad intelligence, or even vindictive reaction. (Watch Just Imagine video on YouTube, length is 3m 11s)

This should not be a difficult concept to grasp, and plain logic (with vast historical supportive evidence) is what enabled Ron Paul to warn for years that we were inviting a terrorist attack. He plainly stated (and continues to state) that people will attack us because we don’t mind our own business. (Read Covert United States foreign regime change actions on Wikipedia) In virtually every case, the plainly stated reason directly from those who are attacking us is that they do it because we don’t mind our own business. Coincidence? No. This should be obvious by now, but Ron Paul still got booed by the audience and patronized by a condescending Rick Santorum at a recent GOP debate for saying so. None of the other candidates are willing to say this, despite the fact that other government agencies have already admitted as much, and the rest of the world seems to see it plain as day. (Read Dying to Win by Robert Pape, or at least the Amazon.com short description of the book)

He has no dark past or flip-flops for the media to dredge up.
Ron Paul was a flight surgeon in the Air Force for five years, and then an OB/GYN afterwards, delivering over 4,000 babies (even continuing through some of his congressional career). He has been married to the same woman for over 50 years. There are no scandals to be found in his personal history that I am aware of, and you can bet they would have come to light by now with the way so many people vehemently oppose him. He has so much honesty and integrity that it’s hard to believe he’s been involved in politics for many decades. I have seen more than a few claims that he has changed his message or been inconsistent, but these are invariably actions taken out of context, misinterpreted, or based on a misunderstanding of his message. And no, I don’t dismiss these claims off-hand because I can’t believe they might be true. I eagerly look into such claims when I come across them, because I want to know what really happened, and I don’t want to blindly support anyone, even Ron Paul. So far, I have not found any dirt that sticks.

He has specific plans for how to deal with every one of the problems listed above.
Ron Paul has already introduced his Plan to Restore America, which cuts $1 trillion (with a T) from the federal budget within the first year of his presidency and produces a truly balanced budget within three years. This is accomplished primarily by returning federal spending to 2006 levels and eliminating five cabinet-level departments: Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education. It also repeals Obamacare, fully audits the Federal Reserve, closes down the empire-like spread of 900 bases we have all over the world to bring our troops back home, implements a spending freeze on most non-eliminated departments, and privatizes many portions of others (including the horrific TSA). The truly necessary functions of the eliminated departments would be handed back to the states.

This plan itself deals with debt and excessive spending, which is a major contributing (or enabling) factor for five of the main problems listed above (debt, wars, unemployment, housing crisis, and healthcare). This move alone will free up vast resources that allow us to focus on defense at home (including illegal immigration) as well as to provide a transition phase for entitlement programs like Social Security that would otherwise run out of funds in short order. Corruption cannot be cured by change in laws, but its effects can be mitigated by simply removing the ability of corrupt politicians to make good on corrupt promises. If there is no expansive federal political power to be bought, then corporations can no longer benefit by paying lobbyists to get what they want.

I realize that it may not immediately follow why that huge spending cut and department reorganization is a good solution for so many problems, but the reasons are there and I would be happy to give them if you would like. Many of the linked videos explain as well. I am only trying to keep this message as short as possible. There is far too much to go into here to deal with every follow-up question on these topics, but they are good to ask. Look up these topics online to find more details on Ron Paul’s specific positions. The important thing is that he does have very specific plans and logical reasoning to back them up, which is once again far more than you’ll find with any other candidate.

He firmly believes in a small government strictly bounded by the Constitution.(Watch Ron Paul’s Electability on YouTube, length is 2m 17s)
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are generally known today for wanting to shrink the scope of government. Honestly, there is very little practical difference between the two parties. We are given the illusion of choice between them, but we’re really only choosing between minor differences in how government power will be expanded at any given time. Politicians typically hate the prospect of giving up either money or power for any reason. But Ron Paul is not like most politicians. I would normally be very hesitant to make such statements about what any particular politician will do if and when he wins an election, but Ron Paul’s record speaks for itself. He has already had numerous opportunities to compromise his principles, and has not done so even in ways that everyone else believes would be perfectly harmless. Ron Paul is running for president for the specific purpose of cutting government down to size, and if he wins, that’s what he will do. (Watch Ron Paul: Why I Want To Be President on YouTube, length is 12m 5s)

He has the strongest grassroots support of any candidate by far, and his supporters throw their heart and soul into spreading his message.
I saw a comment online recently that said, “You claim to be a fervent Ron Paul supporter. Is there any other kind?” Logically, I will be the first to admit that the simple fact that people cling tightly to a given message does not mean that message is correct. However, the fact that Ron Paul has managed to raise nearly $35 million for his two presidential campaigns, from hundreds of thousands of individual donors, suggests that his support is not merely a small or narrow cult following. Ron Paul supporters tend to have a more thorough understanding of the issues at stake than any other demographic I have come across. Some of them can be aggressive, rude, or demeaning in their communication, and this is both wrong and unfortunate since it reflects poorly on the campaign. However, the majority of Ron Paul fans I have observed or communicated with have been diplomatic, patient, educated, and eager to further the cause of liberty in an open and inviting way.

Ron Paul makes a great figurehead, but I have seen a remarkable number of people who expressly state that Ron Paul himself is not even that important, that it’s the message he communicates that makes all the difference. People are latching onto the ideas, not just the messenger. Even many mainstream media outlets and campaign spokespeople from competing campaigns have made statements about the massive, efficient, and motivated grassroots support that he has. They clearly wish they had the same kind of backing. So many GOP candidates rise and fall; we are currently experiencing the rise of Newt Gingrich, which is inexplicable to me given his record. I and many others think his fall is inevitable. Romney’s support has never been very vocal or committed, but people seem to think he’d be a tolerable President, and leave it at that (again, inexplicably so). But Ron Paul’s support, while it started small, is constantly growing at an ever-increasing rate with no sign of any shrinkage.

Also note that it is primarily individuals or non-politically-connected businesses that support him. Other candidates often get huge donations from well-positioned corporations who stand to benefit by political favors. Ron Paul gets none of those, because he is explicitly running to eliminate any possibility of political favors, subsidies, bailouts, or other deals that enable corporatism. (Read Corporatism Is Not Capitalism) His support instead comes from many thousands of small donations. His supporters will make personal sacrifices to their own lifestyle to be able to afford giving him financial support. They will eagerly volunteer time and resources to contribute to his campaign. They will make phone calls, organize town hall meetings, attend straw polls, and above all do everything possible to get his message out to as many people as they can–all because they believe it’s the only way to help the US regain prosperity.

People who come to believe that Ron Paul is right typically find that the entire political landscape shifts into a totally new and clear frame of reference. There are people who love liberty, and then there are people who love the State. Whether there is a D, R, I, or any other letter next to any politician’s name is immaterial. Ron Paul’s message, the philosophy of liberty, self-ownership, non-aggression, and sound money together bring in supporters from every demographic, and when people join the party, they rarely leave–not because they can’t, but because leaving would involve compromising their integrity and retreating back into a mess of ineptitude, power grabs, flip-flops, and corruption.

Every single one of these reasons does not apply to any of the other candidates. They most certainly don’t apply to either Romney or Gingrich. Ron Paul may not be the most physically appealing candidate or the smoothest talker, but the above 10 qualities make him vastly more “presidential” than anyone else running. He has every necessary qualification.

Most people who don’t approve of Ron Paul bring up at least one of these points, so it would be unfair to leave them out of this discussion. I will not address them at length here, but merely provide counterpoints and invite you to follow up with me, visit the supplied links, or look into his actual positions online. His statements and his record speak for themselves.

IsolationismMany people claim that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is one of isolationism because he wants to bring all of the troops home, close down all foreign military bases, quit our nation-building actions, and stop providing government-supplied foreign aid to anyone. But this is not isolationism at all; it is non-interventionism. It’s the difference between “everyone must stay away” and “everyone should take responsibility for themselves.” Ron Paul completely supports free trade with all countries (even including Cuba, which is still inexplicably closed off). He wants to freely and voluntarily trade products, resources, and knowledge with any willing foreign country, without sanctions, subsidies, or tariffs. He is entirely supportive of private donations or even private groups going to foreign countries to provide aid directly. He only wants to avoid any and all political meddling and military alliances. When the government gets involved, there are always unintended consequences, and they are usually bad. (Watch Ron Paul: I’m a Non-Interventionist on YouTube, length is 4m 43s)

IsraelMany people say that Ron Paul hates Israel, or he is anti-Semitic, or other similar claims. These are entirely unfounded. Most of this sentiment comes from his desire to end all foreign aid, including that given to Israel. But Netanyahu has recently claimed that they don’t need or want our help. We have already armed them to the teeth. Ron Paul’s position is simply that we should end our entangling military alliance and interact with them only through open and voluntary trade–including trade of intelligence and security information, if desired, but not beyond that. Israel should be free to do what they want to without answering to the US–they are a sovereign nation, after all–and they should accept the consequences of whatever actions they choose. In the long run, foreign aid is just as bad as domestic welfare; it creates a state of dependency on others. This is not in Israel’s best interest, or ours. We give $3 billion of aid to Israel yearly, and twice that much to other nations who explicitly hate Israel. That doesn’t make sense at all logically, and we don’t even have the money in the first place. In addition, our seemingly blind support of Israel is another thing that causes other countries in the region to be wary or angry with us. Leaving Israel to themselves would be a good move for our own national safety. (Watch Ron Paul: Foreign Policy & Israel on YouTube, length is 6m 57s, and read Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel)

Nuclear IranThis is one of the biggest issues for dissenters right now. Some people claim that Ron Paul wants Iran to have a nuke, or that he is weak on defense, or that he is naive not to want to do everything in his power to keep Iran from getting a nuke. All of these ideas are wrong. There has been a tremendous quantity of fear-mongering propaganda produced by the US government and many media outlets on this topic, eerily similar to that which got us into the unconstitutional and undeclared Afghanistan and Iraq wars we are still fighting. The reality is that Iran is not close to being able to build a nuke, and there is no overwhelming evidence even in the recent IAEA report that they are trying to achieve that goal. (Read IAEA On Iran: A Colossal Non-Event) The oft-quoted anti-Israel remarks from Ahmedinejad about “wiping Israel off the map” were mistranslated and taken out of context, and Ahmedinejad is not even the person ultimately calling the shots. The real authority keeps him on a relatively short leash and has even threatened to eliminate the position he currently holds.

Ron Paul’s strongest argument on this point is that we have absolutely no Constitutional business exercising control over a sovereign foreign government, even if they don’t like us. This is actually the exact same argument that applies to Israel, with the small difference that Iran is not nearly so friendly towards us. If Iran actually attacks us, then Ron Paul would certainly do everything possible to defend our nation (which would be much easier with all of our troops back home in the first place). But we have absolutely no right to impose our will on foreign countries who are not actually violating our own sovereignty. It is dangerous at best, unjustified, and hypocritical for a country that claims to represent freedom in the world.

Additionally, there are many antagonistic countries surrounding Iran which have nuclear weapons of their own. This highlights two things: first, Iran would be exceedingly dumb to even consider using a nuke against anyone, since there would be immediate retaliation from multiple sources if they did. The entire country would be turned into a wasteland. Second, they are surrounded by legitimately dangerous enemies who vastly outmatch them in terms of firepower. Any sane person (or country) in the same situation cannot be blamed for wanting to improve their own defensive posture. Practically speaking, Iran has the exact same rights to possess nuclear arms as any other country does. (If you disagree with this statement, see if you can come up with a reason why that doesn’t involve a Minority-Report-style preemptive conviction of a crime that has not been committed.) We have no authority to control others simply because we are afraid of what they might do. To do this is the height of hypocrisy.

It is very significant that Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Israel will not sign) and has at all times allowed the IAEA inspectors to have total access. All of their fissionable material has been accounted for. There is just no credible evidence that they are trying to build a bomb. And if they had one, what could they really do with it? One prototype, low-yield atomic bomb, 1945 vintage–against what–the Israelis, with hundreds of nuclear weapons, including hydrogen bombs. Or against us, with our atomic subs right off their coastline? And how would they even launch a bomb? They have no delivery systems in place, certainly not anything long-range.

It would be like building a Civil-War-era powder-and-shot rifle out of a kit and then taking it to attack a modern military base, where they have an infantry battalion with automatic weapons. What would happen when they reached the front gate at the base and started shooting? Not hard to guess, right? No matter what angry rhetoric the Iranian president spews, they aren’t crazy enough to really try to attack either us or Israel. They don’t want to give us or Netanyahu an excuse to obliterate their country.

DrugsRon Paul wants to completely end the so-called “war on drugs.” It is an abject failure. It is the wrong solution to a problem that, while it is very real to a small number of people, has been twisted and misrepresented for decades. It is exactly as misguided as the alcohol prohibition movement was nearly a hundred years ago. The drug war has created a lucrative, hidden, dangerous black market for controlled substances, which is far more damaging than open markets. It has also created an enormous burden on the entire country due to skyrocketing prison populations. (View the first few graphs from November.org) The dangerous yet financially enticing black market for drugs is also in large part funding the ongoing strife in Mexico. If the drug market weresuddenly legitimized, drug sales would no longer be able to financially support the various factions involved. It wouldn’t solve all of their problems, but it would certainly have an effect.

The majority of people do not wake up each day and think, “You know, if it weren’t illegal, I think I’d go smoke some weed (or shoot up heroin, or snort cocaine).” We do not stay away from drugs because they are illegal. We stay away from drugs because we are not interested in them, or we don’t want to risk suffering from possible adverse effects. The people who decide they want to use drugs anyway don’t care about the laws in the first place. That is precisely why drug laws are ineffective. They are the wrong solution to addiction problems. The reason most people are not alcoholics is obviously not because alcohol is illegal, and the reason alcoholics are alcoholics is obviously not because alcohol is legal. This same reasoning applies to drugs.

Further, even ignoring its failure, the federal government has no authority to do what they are doing. Back during the prohibition era, politicians and anti-alcohol groups realized that they would need a constitutional amendment to try to control the private purchase and consumption of alcohol, since that power was clearly not in the Constitution. In 1920, they managed to get one (the 18th Amendment), which was no small task. This was repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment, after over a decade of a completely failed “war on alcohol” that produced the same kind of lucrative, dangerous, illegal black market for booze as we have today for drugs. Today, politicians have utterly disregarded the limitations on their authority and simply gone ahead without it. The reasoning and methods are the same as before; only the substances in question have changed. The Constitution certainly hasn’t. What they are doing is not only ineffective, it is also outside of their jurisdiction.

Ending the war on drugs would bring the market back into the light, cut off funding for drug lords, clear out a significant portion of entirely non-violent inmates from our prison system, and increase sales tax revenue for many states. It would not solve drug addiction problems, but it would remove some of the stigma and all of the illegality, which would make it less socially difficult to deal with real drug addiction problems than it is today. This is Ron Paul’s position.

Religion
Ron Paul is a Christian. This may be seen as a positive thing for some of you, or neutral, or negative, depending on your own views. He does not pretend to be anything else, and he is not ashamed of his beliefs. He has a short but clear Statement of Faith page right on his official campaign website. Most importantly though, his words and actions, the way he interacts with others, and his honesty and integrity are not at odds with his professed religion. He is not a fake Christian, or a “convenient” Christian. His principled approach to both life and politics are aligned with his moral convictions and religious beliefs.

He does not, however, want to use the Presidency as a means to impose a self-interpreted theocracy on us (which at least Bachmann and Santorum seem to want). He believes that religion is a very important personal matter, and that as important as it is to share it with others, it is equally important not to legislate it onto others using government, since that is both impractical and counterproductive. People do not change their beliefs because of laws. While Ron Paul will readily talk to you about his faith if you ask him, he makes a specific point not to use it as leverage to get elected.

If this position seems wrong to you, imagine how you might feel about someone with a different religion winning the election and then using their new power to push that religion. It is unwise to want an elected official to wield power beyond that intended for their office simply because they agree with you, since their time in power is temporary. What happens when someone who holds different views takes that newly empowered office? If a government has power to help spread a particular religion, then it most likely has power to help spread any religion. The Constitution was plainly worded to prevent this. Ron Paul understands this.

Gay marriageSome people claim that Ron Paul is pro-gay-marriage. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing to you, it is a misinterpretation of his position. Ron Paul believes that the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. It is simply not within their jurisdiction. The government doesn’t regulate baptism; why should marriage be different? (And since he also wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax, don’t believe it’s because of tax benefits either.) Marriage as an institution is truly defined by religion. Different religions ascribe different meanings to it, but marriage without religion is nothing more than a particularly strong commitment or friendship (which is not a bad thing in itself). The only reason a government should get involved is because marriage is (in some cases) also a legal contract. The enforcement of that legal contract is as far as any government should be allowed to go. Ron Paul is not pro-gay-marriage, he is merely anti-state-marriage. There is significant difference.

AbortionRon Paul delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB/GYN. He is pro-life to the core. The one specific view that defines his position on abortion is that he believes that life begins at conception. Combined with his existing principles on self-ownership and individual liberty, his views on abortion make complete logical sense. If life begins at conception, then abortion is, simply put, killing a child. But pay special attention to the reasoning here. Ron Paul disapproves of the Roe v. Wade ruling not because he is pro-life, but because it is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. Given the opportunity, he would certainly not replace it with a similar but opposite ruling that said all abortion is illegal. Why not? Because criminal manslaughter laws are not the business of the federal government. Those laws are enforced on a state level, and to take that authority away from the states is a violation of the Constitution. This is Ron Paul’s position. If life does begin at conception, then the abortion question is over since it then falls under the existing set of state laws concerning exactly when it is okay to kill another person (practically never, except in self-defense). If life does not begin at conception, then Ron Paul would not support a federal law either permitting or banning it. The specific answer to when life begins is not something the President can provide in a legal capacity. Ron Paul is, as always, merely trying to keep the role of the government within its very tight bounds.

Letting grandma dieSome people claim that Ron Paul is a cold, heartless person because he wants to end Social Security and Medicare, and that he believes everyone should be on their own for their healthcare. This is, again, totally wrong. It is true that Ron Paul wants to end Social Security and Medicare, because they are entitlement programs that are not only inherently detrimental to society as a whole, but also impossible to pay for in their current state. He plans to phase them out gradually, allowing alternative competing options on a private basis to pick up the slack. Part of his $1 Trillion in budgeted spending cuts is to allow the federal government to actually make good on its promises to people who are currently dependent on these systems without going into more debt or printing more money. Younger people will have the opportunity to opt out. He most definitely does not intend to end the entitlement programs overnight, but the reality is that they will simply implode on themselves in a much more destructive way if we don’t take steps to dismantle them gradually.

Also, Ron Paul doesn’t believe for a second that everyone should always be on their own when it comes to health care (or any other financial hardship). He merely believes that the government should not be involved in the forced redistribution of wealth, and that private charities, other groups, or even the doctors themselves should be responsible for providing low-cost or no-cost service to those who truly need it (which will be more feasible if the health care market is actually opened up to real competition). His own actions while running his OB/GYN practice are an example for the rest of the industry.

Many people say that private charity is insufficient to solve this problem. It is true that we currently don’t give as much as would be necessary to support medical costs right at this moment, because costs are so high and because everyone is used to letting insurance companies or the government pay for everything. If the health care market were a truly competitive field, however, costs would go down. While this happens, people who typically have to pay through the nose will have more money to work with, increasing the possibility that they will be willing to give to charitable organizations or friends who need it.

Charity is voluntarily giving people money to solve problems that they didn’t prepare for. Whether out of real inability or negligence, the consequence is the same. By definition, the alternative is precisely this: Involuntarily giving people money to solve problems they didn’t prepare for. Or, in other words: they take your money, without your consent, to solve problems they didn’t prepare for. This doesn’t fit with any sustainable model of property rights that I know of. Random kindness is certainly not a solution, but charity is not the same as random kindness. Charity is targeted kindness. If it is okay for people to take your money without your consent to solve problems they didn’t prepare for, then what incentive is there to prepare? This is the problem with government welfare and entitlement programs. No matter where you set the bar for who “deserves” the money (forcefully taken by the government in the form of taxes), there is some marginal group of people who can take advantage of it simply by doing just a little less than they were before.

Private charity, which does not have an endless supply of taxpayer funding, presents a much clearer motivation for the down-and-out person to do whatever they can get to back on their own feet, because they know that any reasonable private charity will not continue to support them if they don’t improve. This is Ron Paul’s position.

I would be happy to directly address any other specific objections, if you have them.

Why not any of the other candidates?

In short, because they can’t even begin to compare with Ron Paul and his record and integrity. There are definitely distinct reasons not to vote for the other candidates though. I did not compile these lists in this format, but they are the most concise, centralized collections of short points that I have seen anywhere.

Advocates preemptive war. Obama has started more wars than even Bush including bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya without Congressional approval.

Supports the Patriot Act.

Condones the use of torture.

Supports the federal war on drugs.

Tried to extend the Iraq war, but was forced to follow Bush’s exit plan.

Allowed the torture of American citizen Bradley Manning.

Authorized the targeted murder of American citizens without trial.

Participated in and authorized illegal domestic surveillance.

Implemented restrictions on free speech and the free Internet.

Supportive of NAFTA and similar “free-trade” agreements.

With records like that, is there even a question who is most qualified? Bachmann and Santorum cannot possibly win the nomination at this stage, but they have their own sets of points as well (many of which are very similar to the ones above). Huntsman would be a better choice, but he is still nowhere near as committed to Constitutional government as Ron Paul is. Gary Johnson is pretty much completely sidelined, which is unfortunate because he and Ron Paul agree on most critical points. If you like Johnson though, you should really like Paul. Perry would be like Bush Part 2–not an encouraging thought. I can’t believe people would actually bring themselves to vote for Romney, and I can’t believe that so many conservatives are actually supporting Gingrich at this stage. Both of their records are atrocious.

Ron Paul is the only one who has real answers that are actually based in reality, not political maneuvering.

Well, that was long.

Yes, it was. Sorry about that. Thanks for reading though! Please feel free to reply directly to me for any reason. Here are a few online resources if you want to research for your self:

Update 12/10/2011: William Stearns has provided some excellent additional resources in the Comments section. Be sure to check them out as well.

Look into what I’ve written. Don’t just take it at face value. If you would like to, please feel free to share this with your friends. You can leave my name on it if you want, or you can send it as though you wrote it. I don’t care either way. My goal is simply to expose more people to this message, which they are unlikely to hear if they aren’t looking for it. This coming presidential election is likely one of the most important we’ll face, specifically because of the rapidly declining economy. We cannot sustain what we are doing for much longer; we need to change. Not Obama-style change, mind you. Real, specific, logical, effective change.

Please, please vote for Ron Paul in the primary election, and in the general election. If he wins the GOP nomination, there is absolutely no doubt that he will win the general election. Obama cannot compete with Ron Paul on any level–except possibly charisma, but people are becoming disillusioned with that. Contrary to what so many media outlets say, Ron Paul truly is electable. His support is substantial and growing.

Many states have open primaries, so that you can vote in them even if you are not registered as a Republican. (Visit http://www.bluerepublican.org for details about requirements and deadlines for each state.)

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.

Jeff Rowberg

A Personal Endorsement for Ron Paul 2012 was last modified: March 14th, 2017 by Jeff Rowberg

I recently posted an article (A Conversational Treatise on the Problems with Intellectual Property) that addressed what I believe to be the incorrect assumptions necessary to support the entire concept and legal system surrounding intellectual property. The post came about as a result of a conversation I had with a friend, and it is simply a question/response format long discussion on the topic. The core argument I made is that information is inherently not ownable, in that it is an infinitely reproducible non-physical resource. Secondarily, patents and copyrights are not necessary for innovation and creation to flourish.

My friend asked good questions throughout the course of the conversion, which helped me articulate and solidify my own viewpoint. However, I admit that some (though not all) of that conversation and the arguments within it are ideological in nature, and based on my worldview rather than incontrovertible empirical data. Therefore, I want to address a different side of the argument, one which is based on current and widely accepted economics.

I know that my ideas here are very, very far away from what many people believe, so I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. All logical comments in response are welcome. The core of my argument today is this:

In other words, “create once, sell forever” is no longer a viable business model if all you deal with is digital information.

Ideological Argument Recap

One of the comments on my last post presented an example scenario to counter what I wrote there. The essence of the scenario is that someone decides to take everything I wrote in the article, claim it as his own, and then use it to get a book deal with the Wall Street Journal. I’ve just been ripped off, haven’t I?

In short, no.

I will recap my original argument here for clarity: in this case, the knowledge has already been given away (I posted it online), and to demand future payment for that is unjustified. I might be totally happy not to pursue the topic any further, and then the rest of society might benefit from someone else continuing the discussion via a WSJ-sponsored book. But assuming I did want my own book deal, then as the original author, I also have means of attempting to expose the other person as a fraud, redirecting the WSJ to the original source of talent (assuming they consider it a “talented” composition). But the only thing really wrong in this hypothetical situation is that the other guy lied about his authorship of the original work—a problem which does not require copyright law to address. The fact that he got a book deal based on what I did means that I am passing up a potential opportunity, not that he “stole” the published content that was “rightfully mine to sell.” He does, after all, still have to do all the work of writing the book in order to fulfill his end of the WSJ deal.

The same friend I had the original conversation with asked a similar hypothetical question, this time about the “S#!@ My Dad Says” guy on Twitter. He started a while back posting short, funny quotes from his dad on a Twitter account, and as a result of that, ended up with a book deal and a TV show. (Good for him for capitalizing on it!) My friend’s question was, like the post comment, what if someone else had compiled all those tweets and printed a book or started a TV show without accrediting the original author? Wouldn’t that be screwing him?

Again, in short, no.

It would still be wrong for another person to claim authorship of something he didn’t write, and it would be an obvious move for the original author to jump in and demonstrate his true authorship, and subsequently reap the benefits of whatever negotiations had been fraudulently started by the other guy. However, that’s not a problem that requires copyright law to address. It’s just fraud, plain and simple. If the other guy managed to get a book deal or a TV show based on stuff that admittedly belonged to someone else, then there should be no problem whatsoever.

The Economic Reality of Marginal Cost

Now, to address today’s topic: Whether or not you agree with the previous argument, there is an economic argument as well which starts the same way. Exactly why is it actually wrong to “monetize off of somebody else” in this way? Fundamentally, it’s just duplicating information and then adding value (compiling it into a book, etc.) which others are willing to pay for. The original author, by virtue of being the true source, has options for attempting to redirect the money back to himself as I mentioned before. But by freely posting his content online, he has permanently set the no-value-added “cost” of that knowledge at exactly $0.

If the SMDS guy didn’t make a book or TV show out of his tweets, and nobody else did either, then everyone would be content (with the possible exception of the people who really wish there were book or TV show). Nothing would have been “taken” from anyone despite the fact that it is all freely available for everyone to read. But suddenly, once a book or TV show deal comes into play, it makes a legal difference who goes forward with it? That doesn’t make sense.

Marginal cost is the change in total cost that arises when the quantity produced changes by one unit.

Marginal revenue is the extra revenue that an additional unit of product will bring. It is the additional income from selling one more unit of a good; sometimes equal to price.

For a business, profit maximization requires that a firm produce where marginal revenue equals marginal costs.

Note here that the marginal cost of information (knowledge, ideas, art, music, video, designs, etc.) is effectively zero. I can share information for free. I can create 1,000 copies of one ebook, MP3, or video as easily as 100, or 10, or 1—or none, for that matter. Anyone else can too, just as easily. As storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall, the marginal cost will only get closer to zero—though it is already so close as to be indistinguishable. Economically, this means that sustainable marginal revenue (i.e. markup) can only be greater than zero if there is something besides the information itself present to add value. This is why it is impossible to enforce copyright today. Attempting to do so is directly attacking a fundamental principle of basic economics. It is not possible, in the long term, to make any money on something that costs nothing to reproduce unless you add something else of value along with it.

Although it is painful to face sometimes, this applies to any information that becomes public, whether intentionally or not. The effective economic cost of any public information is $0. This is why trade secrets are valuable, and yet even our IP-friendly government says you’re out of luck once they become public. They are no longer secret, and impossible to protect as such.

Real Work Creates Real Value, But Not Necessarily Forever

Now, if you’re in a band that goes to the effort to record a dozen songs for an album, that work is real and does have a cost. The typical thinking today is that the cost of that work should be off-loaded onto the consumer in exchange for albums, concert tickets, merchandise, etc. This is a fine idea except that album sales, economically speaking, should not be included in the revenue equation due to their $0 marginal cost. Whatever else it may be, relying on album sales for a critical stream of revenue is an unwise business model, because it depends on your ability to convince people that the value of a $0 marginal cost resource is not $0. There are plenty of less risky ways to offset the fixed cost of the original recording, most of which are some private or crowdsourced variation of the concept of commissioning a work of art.

I also want to clarify that while the digital data representing a band’s album has a $0 marginal cost, that doesn’t mean that it is impossible to make money selling albums. Obviously, physical media has a cost, and you can get some small profit by marking up and selling CDs to people who still want physical media. That customer is evidently a dying breed, however, and I wouldn’t recommend it as a key part of your business. A more effective approach would be to sell autographed CDs, or CDs that come with a unique photo of the band, or something like that. These add-on features provide real value by virtue of being unique (scarce, not infinite). Yes, it takes more work than simply running off 10,000 identical copies of a CD. But that’s kind of the point: it takes real effort to create real value. To believe otherwise is naive. The initial work that goes into recording an album does not somehow translate into infinite future value, which is precisely what copyright would have us believe. It is just an excellent way to promote your band and entice people to pay for scarce goods, like concert tickets. But the music alone, in digital form, costs nothing to reproduce and has no defensible inherent value.

Of course, there are a lot of people who will still pay $1 per track from iTunes even though they could torrent your entire discography for free in 20 minutes. Some do this because it’s convenient (or they don’t know how to use BitTorrent). Some do it because they want to support the artists—though I’d argue that torrenting the music and sending a $15 check straight to the artist would probably be far more beneficial. Some do it because they are afraid of the legal consequences. All of these people see a $0 marginal cost product as having a value above $0, due to altruism, convenience, or fear. The music industry has the best chance to succeed by capitalizing on convenience, but they seem to run in the opposite direction all the time by employing ever-worsening DRM and by attacking services that make it easy to get lots of music while still paying, simply because it’s less money than they demand.

DRM Has a Very Temporary Value

I am not implying that anyone who produces a digital product—music, movies, photos, or a software package like Windows or Photoshop—should by definition give it away, either in compiled or source form. It is certainly up to the creators to do whatever they want to with their products, including the application of complicated DRM and copy protection methods. Economically, this adds a perceived “value” of convenience that (to some) makes it worth paying for the official version, because it means they don’t have to do any extra work to get around any DRM and copy protection.

But this is a temporary solution, since DRM can always be broken with enough effort, and then the “value” is effectively gone. As content creators get more and more desperate to protect their content by employing these methods, they often end up annoying or completely alienating their paying customers while the pirates continue to have an enjoyable, DRM-free experience. In some cases, the copy protection schemes are so bad that companies are forced to issue patches to defeat their own DRM, as was the case with the infamous Sony rootkit debacle, and with Ubisoft—which actually turned a 3rd-party software crack into an official utility to “fix” one of their games.

Copy protection measures are a gamble at best. It takes more work to implement, more work to update, more work to support, and for at least a small portion of your customer base, it will end up being completely worthless. This is true of video, audio, text, and software; anything digital is subject to this reality. Of course, it is definitely your prerogative as a creator to use DRM if you want to, but it’s a big risk. Economically, it makes more sense to focus on adding real value that nobody can take away from your product by breaking through the DRM. Depending on the nature of your product, examples of real value are things like priority and/or automatic updates, helpful customer support, custom integration, autographs, concerts, merchandise, personal communication, consulting, informational workshops, training sessions, and media appearances. Anything that requires actual effort every time has the potential to create real value, since actual effort cannot be duplicated at zero cost.

Create Once, Sell…Forever?

Back to the “S#!@ My Dad Says” guy on Twitter: assuming that only the tweets exist, then the only way anyone (including the author) could sell a book or create a TV show is by putting in more effort. If the original author does it, great. If someone else does it, fine. In an economy that recognizes that the cost of digital reproduction is zero, it shouldn’t make a difference who does it, though with some effort, the original author probably has the best chance to effectively monetize his own work if he wants to. The author has already eaten the fixed costs and set the marginal cost of his creation to $0. To expect automatic remuneration for doing nothing else is an unjustified sense of entitlement, albeit one that has been encouraged by our IP system for hundreds of years.

Why does it make sense for a product to be created once (in an infinite format) and then sold exactly as-is to an unlimited number of customers for a profit without adding any further value? The concept is absurd outside of the information business, since any other type of product cannot be reproduced at zero cost. This, really, is the whole point. It’s only been possible to pull this off inside the information business because there previously weren’t enough tools available to counter it effectively—though, there have been information “pirates” in the classic sense for a very long time. Then along came the internet and digital storage and transfer, and suddenly people everywhere are realizing that a zero-marginal-cost thing with no value added should maybe also really be a zero-marginal-revenue thing.

People tend to complain when markup is very high, because it feels like the merchant is trying to rip them off. Markup is often calculated based on cost, which is done by dividing the difference in cost and sale price by the original cost. In the case of infinitely reproducible zero-marginal-cost goods, this means that any markup at all is always infinite. No wonder so many people reject the idea!

The development of cheap digital information storage and zero-cost duplication and transfer has killed the viability of the “create once, sell forever” content-centered business model. Whether it should have is a different discussion, but it certainly did.

The Decadence of Society or the Failure of a Business Model?

“But Jeff,” I hear you say, “are you claiming that just because technology makes it easy to steal, that it’s somehow okay? What have you been smoking? If technology made it easier for you to walk out of my front door with my plasma TV, would that be okay too?!”

Ah, no. That is missing the point entirely.

Physical property is very different from information (a.k.a. “intellectual property”). You cannot own information, and therefore you cannot steal information. Stealing your plasma TV, on the other hand, would be wrong no matter how easy it is.

Technology has not made it easier to “steal” information from people who “own” it. Technology has simply made it a lot harder to sell something which could not really be owned in the first place. What we are witnessing today is a violent backlash from businesses that previously made all their money by selling identical copies of infinite resources. This business model has been effectively killed, though the law hasn’t caught up with this reality, and those who stand to profit most are fighting like mad against their impending doom (though a few are adjusting their business models instead).

The nominal purpose of the institution of copyright is to encourage creativity. I address at length in my last post why I don’t believe this is necessary at all, but for the next point, its necessity is irrelevant. Copyright is enforced by establishing a specific owner of some piece of information, and then that owner can file a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone else if they use that information in an unauthorized way without permission. Of course, even if the lawsuit is won, the defendant can’t exactly give the information back, since it was never gone in the first place, but…I digress.

The point is that copyright law is based on the assumption that information can be owned, and subsequently enforced by attempting to keep people from stealing it. Since it is impossible to deny that information is itself infinitely reproducible at no cost, the only practical purpose for copyright law is to make sure that information (with no added value) is sold for some monetary gain according to the desires of the copyright owner. In other words, the only practical purpose for copyright is to prop up a business model that is economically unsustainable.

Again, whether it should be is another conversation, but there it is.

One other clarification: my ideas don’t change the fact that IP laws are still in place. No matter how much you or I or anyone may hold this position, you can still be sued for copyright infringement. Ideological difference is not a valid defense in this case. Please keep that in mind, and realize I am not encouraging anyone to break the law. But I wholeheartedly encourage anyone and everyone to create products and run businesses without relying on or enforcing any part of the concept of IP. I think this is the most effective way to bring about change, because it demonstrates that IP is not necessary.

The internet has illuminated the economic problems with IP. Once enough people realize that they can do far better in the long run focusing on the economic solutions instead of IP enforcement, the laws will lose favor and, I believe, ultimately be widely ignored and eventually changed or repealed as a result. One can hope so, anyway.

Alternative Business Models

So if you can’t continue to sell infinitely reproducible zero-value-added information, how can you stay in business? If you’re honestly asking that question at this point in time, then you have a fighting chance.

The obvious (but general) answer is that you need to add some value to the infinite digital product. If people don’t see value in what you are selling, they won’t pay. Costs are measurable, but perceived value is subjective. If the perceived value equals or exceeds the price, then people will pay for it.

Pay What You Want

As I mentioned before, some people will pay even when they know the marginal cost is zero. You can market a product with this in mind using what is typically known as a “pay-what-you-want” model. The Humble Indie Bundle software sales have done this with great success in the recent past. Radiohead was famously one of the first major bands to abandon the common recording contract model and release a pay-what-you-want album (that link goes to a Time article from October 2007 with some very interesting observations). Many open-source projects get some financial support using the same concept.

Pay-what-you-want can work very well to build interest, and it’s almost impossible to lose if your product is digital. But I have a feeling that it only works as well as it does now because people still expect to have to pay for digital information in most cases. If that changes, then pay-what-you-want will lose some of its novelty, but it can still be very useful.

Pay-what-you-want also makes it incredibly easy to go through official channels to get a digital product and effectively donate what you want to. Many people realize that even if they can get something for free, it is still worthwhile to support the creator to help ensure that he continues updating or maintaining that product, or will decide to create another desirable thing in the future. People associate quality with value, and if they get Product A for free and find it to be a high-quality item, they will be much more likely to pay in advance to encourage the creation of another high-quality Product B. Essentially, the creator is saying, “I’m giving you Product A for free. If you like it and you ever want to see a Product B, you have to give me some money, because it’s not worth it to me otherwise.” How much money the creator needs is up to him, and how much money the Product A consumers are willing to give is up to them. If the creator gets enough money to make it worth moving forward to him, then the business continues. Otherwise, it doesn’t.

Of course, this approach is not the only option. It is very difficult to predict how well it will do, so if you’re creating a solid business plan to bring in a reliable revenue stream, you will probably want to incorporate other means instead of or in addition to a pay-what-you-want offer. The initial work (fixed costs) required to produce the first copy of a photograph, book, song, movie, etc. is significant, and it’s good business to try to recoup those costs somehow.

As with any business, the initial investment required to produce the first instance of a product is usually larger than that required to produce the second instance of the same product. With manufactured physical goods, this usually looks like a 1/x curve that starts at one point then drops toward zero. The highest point is usually at the “Quantity = 1” point at the very beginning, and this represents the fixed cost: manufacturing tools, preparation, materials, business licenses, and everything else you need to get started. The lowest point the curve ever reaches is the marginal cost of the product.

In the case of company who wants to sell their products digitally, this is not a curve at all. The “Quantity = 1” point represents the cost of creating the product (which can be very high), and then every point after that is on the zero line. Aside from marketing and distribution channels that require raw materials (printed books, CDs, DVDs, theaters, etc.), all of the costs are at the very beginning of the production cycle. In light of the previous discussion of marginal cost relating to marginal revenue, relying on digital sales of a zero-value-added infinite product to recoup the initial investment is an economically bad move.

Crowdsourced Funding

What other choices do you have, since pay-what-you-want is unpredictable and selling infinite goods is bad economics? Regardless of what your product is, there is always the option of the “commission” approach. By this, I mean that someone else pays you to create what they want, rather than paying you after they discover that you created something they like. The idea of “commissioning a work of art” may bring up mental images of royalty negotiating with Mozart, but nothing says it needs to be complicated or high-profile.

One great example of a current similar system is the Kickstarter platform, which allows for crowdsourced funding with minimized risk. You pitch your idea as a Kickstarter project and set a minimum funding goal, and then if people like it enough, they pledge to support you in return for various “rewards” which you define. If you get enough pledges to reach your funding goal, all of your backers’ credit cards are charged for their pledge amounts, and you get the money you need to continue. If you don’t reach the goal, then your backers pay nothing and you get nothing; if this happens, then the market has spoken, and it doesn’t like your idea enough. Back to the drawing board.

There are countless creators using Kickstarter in this way right now to fund photography projects, books, music, movies, and all kinds of other things. The idea is economically solid and obviously effective. The beauty of this platform is that not only can you raise all the money you need, you also have an excellent opportunity to uniquely connect with your best customer base and get great feedback before you put in all the effort. On the other hand, if your idea has difficulty finding a market, then you get to make that critical discovery before you put in the initial investment to create a product.

The Non-Infinite Component

If you want to sell digital data with any real success, then you need to add some special, unique, non-infinite component to go along with it. (I use the term “non-infinite” rather than just saying “finite” to highlight the fact that the core product is actually infinite and has no marginal cost.) As I listed before, this could take any number of forms depending on the nature of your creative work.

For art, it might be a personal showing, unique photos taken or paintings made specifically for the customer, or signed works.

For books, it might be an autographed copy, a one-on-one session to discuss the book, or a presentation at a conference.

For music, it might be concert tickets, small-venue personal shows, autographed photos or CDs, T-shirts or other clothing, featured remixes, or back-stage passes.

For movies, it might be theater tickets or coupons for free food at the theater, a unique single-frame printed photo from the film, signed memorabilia from the set or related to the actors, or other movie-related merchandise.

These ideas are not original to me, and this is not a comprehensive list. The important thing is to make sure people have a reason to buy rather than simply obtain what can be infinitely copied without loss of quality. All of the above suggestions are impossible to duplicate without cost, which is why they work. Sell the things that are finite. Don’t try to sell the things that are infinite, because people are starting to realize that to do so makes no economic sense, whether or not they can articulate it.

The High-Dollar Movie Business

“But Jeff,” I hear you say again, “Avatar cost $236 million to make. Do you seriously think they could have used crowdsourced funding to achieve that, or relied on merchandise sales or other gimmicks?”

In all honesty, probably not. It did gross over $2.7 billion though, a record-setting amount, so obviously a lot of people liked it. The important thing to mention here is that $2.7 billion came in from theater releases. As of the end of July 2011, Avatar only brought in a paltry $190 million from DVD sales, or 7% of the income from the theatrical release. Blu-ray sales are not included in this amount, since I haven’t been able to find accurate information. Taking into account the higher cost and currently smaller market for the Blu-ray format, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Blu-ray sales brought in another $200 million (though it may be much less). This means that Avatar managed to make over $2 billion from theaters in the first two months, whereas 15 months of home media sales brought in only about 20% of this amount. Clearly, theaters offer better return-on-investment opportunities for expensive, visually impressive films.

For movies with very high production costs and a lot of publicity, their best chance to succeed comes from capitalizing on the unique, finite aspects of movies—most notably, as mentioned above, from the theater experience. This experience cannot be duplicated without cost. It’s a social event, something which most people can’t even begin to imitate in their own homes. Today, going to the movies is less “fun” to many people than it used to be, particularly to people who have memories of what it was like many decades ago. But this is not a terminal problem; it is just an area for improvement. Theaters obviously still bring in a lot of money despite whatever shortcomings they may have.

If a private company has a reasonable expectation that a movie will cost $250 million to produce and will gross $2 billion from the theatrical release, then it is a wise business decision to simply get a $250 million loan and go ahead with it. This is an example of a good risk, and a good use of debt, to fund an expensive creative undertaking. No copyright is necessary to create the story, hire actors, hire a fantastic digital effects crew, turn it into a visually stunning movie, or get a 700% return-on-investment.

Game Theory and Copyright-Free Content

For the sake of thoroughness, there’s a counter argument here that I need to address: if the marginal cost of a digital copy of Avatar is $0 (which it is), what’s to stop the theaters themselves from “pirating” the $236M-fixed-cost movie in a copyright-free world and just reaping all the $2.7B profits for themselves?

This is a very good question, which does indeed have a good answer consistent with a copyright-free position.

Movie theaters are nothing without movies. They cannot possibly survive if they don’t have good films to show on a regular basis. Therefore, the first priority of a theater that wants to compete is to make sure it can obtain new movies in a timely fashion. It can get them through an authorized contract agreement from the official distributors, or it can attempt to get copies for free through unofficial distributors. Any smart theater owner is going to go the free route, right?

Actually, no.

Game theory indicates that businesses in a competitive market will almost always choose the option that has the most “predictably good” outcome, not the option with the highest possible profit, when the outcome depends on the decisions of competitors. For instance, let’s say that two people can each choose either option 1 or option 2. If they both choose option 1, then they both get $5. If only one of them chooses option 2, then that one gets $10 and the other one gets $3. But if they both choose option 2, then they both get nothing. The only way either can get $10 is if only that one chooses option 2. Although it is possible to get $10 with the right set of choices, the best predictably good choice is option 1, which has a smaller guaranteed payout, but no chance of a zero payout.

For a movie theater, competition means showing new, popular movies in a fun environment and at a reasonable price as soon as they are available. If the owner opts to show movies obtained through unofficial channels, he is likely to run behind the theaters who don’t, giving them a clear advantage among people who want to see the movies first. This decision also virtually guarantees that no other major movie production company will make a deal with him in the future, meaning that theater is forever relegated to showing unofficially distributed movies behind its competitors. Some “bargain” theaters would be able to make a business out of this, to be sure, but not all of them.

Bringing the game theory example into it, the theaters who use official channels are choosing option 1, the smaller guaranteed payout instead of maximum possible profit. By doing so, they are also fostering a relationship with the movie production companies and building goodwill among their providers and customers (who want to see more good movies made and shown in the future). The other theaters that use unofficial channels, on the other hand, are choosing option 2. They get a larger profit per ticket, and by taking some customers away from the official theaters, reduce their competitors’ profits as well, but at what cost? Delayed releases, zero beneficial relationships with the movie producers, no future contract possibilities, and boycotts from customers who believe some of the ticket price should go back to the producers.

Continuing the game theory application, what if all theaters decided to choose option 2 and bypass official distribution agreements? For a very short time, they would all reap enormous profits. Then, of course, their source of profit would vanish entirely. Most people, and certainly most production companies, would never spend $250 million to make a movie which they know they can’t recoup their investment on somehow. Few people would be passionate enough to spend even a tiny fraction of that hiring actors and crew to create a movie if they knew without a doubt that someone else would reap all of the profits on it. Game theory indicates that this “mutually assured destruction” outcome will not happen, but that most theaters will choose to stay on good terms with producers to support what ultimately creates their customer base.

This is not to say that the film industry, or any creative industry for that matter, will die without a profit motive (I totally disagree with this idea). There are many reasons people create every conceivable type of work. For every blockbuster movie, there are probably dozens of excellent small, independent films that never get much exposure. These are often made on a very small budget, sometimes with no expectation of a guaranteed return-on-investment. But for the argument above, blockbuster releases are the lifeblood of many theaters, and it is definitely true that these high-profile, giant-marketing-campaign films are made at least in large part due to their profit potential.

I recently had an extended conversation on Facebook with one of my friends about the nature and problems of intellectual property. This wasn’t the intention of the post that started the comment thread—it was about Microsoft calling out Google for claiming MS bought the Novell patent portfolio to keep them out of Google’s hands after Google declined to participate in a joint bid with MS. I posted a comment about an alternative take on the story from Techdirt, which prompted the following conversation which took place over a the next few days. It ended up including quite a bit of detailed opinion about patents and copyrights, and it took enough collective effort that I wanted to post it for others to read and respond to as well. My friend’s identity is removed, though just for perspective, I will say that he is a photographer and makes at least some of his living off of his work. This influences his take on intellectual property, as I’m sure my vocation as a programmer and work on the Keyglove project does to my own position on it.

I don’t assert that I’m absolutely right, though I do feel that my points are argued well, and as of the time of this post, I wouldn’t change what I said. I may revisit this in a year and realize that my views have changed, or I may not. I welcome any further comments, positive or negative, as long as you take the time to read everything below before you respond so that you can get the whole picture. Challenges from others are the best way I know of to either cement or revise my own opinions through debate. (His posts are indented in block quotes, mine are in normal text.)

Patents are often painted in bad light, but being an innovator, do you not see the merit in them? If someone took your concept and capitalized on it without you seeing any revenue, wouldn’t you be pissed? I think some reform may be great, but I think this article distracts from Google’s two-faced whining. I don’t imagine them playing ball with everyone else had they acquired the patent portfolio.

Patents are, at their core, a government-granted right to control other people’s property, which I find very difficult to defend while believing in physical property rights at the same time. Yes, I would be disappointed if somebody capitalized on my concept without my seeing any revenue, IF I intended to capitalize on it first. But if I have an idea, and they actually implement it, then do I REALLY have a right to demand compensation just because I thought of it first? Patents say yes, even if they thought of it independently. I say no in either case.

Well, there’s a difference between patent-whoring, like what Lodsys was doing, but if you have an actual product, I don’t quite see a problem with capitalizing on it. The article is a bit deluded in its conclusion that IP does not increase wealth. Take Novell, for example. They sold off their patent portfolio and made money off a technology they developed (as is my understanding). If your project is successful, and you patent it, a company that knows how to improve it may want to buy you out – that increases wealth. When, on the other hand, a patent troll like Lodsys comes along, they need to be stripped of their ‘patents’ because they’re just philosophical in nature, not pragmatic. The actual utility needs to be considered in patents, and this is why I believe there should be reform, and not an altogether ousting of them.

The Mises.org article doesn’t say that IP doesn’t increase wealth, exactly. It says that IP doesn’t demonstrably increase general wealth, meaning it is illogical to argue for patents from a utilitarian standpoint. IP can absolutely increase specific wealth, that of the person who is the legal “owner” of the IP. Their point is that the only studies available tend to show that there is a net loss in the system as a whole when one individual or group gets to control the implementation of a single idea–i.e., no increase in general wealth. Sure, that individual or group can make more money, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s justified. Why EXACTLY should a company that knows how to improve on an idea and turn it into a better product be required to get my permission to do so?

I agree that what Lodsys is doing is indefensible on more than one level. But who makes the call on whether patents are philosophical or pragmatic? There is often a conflict of interest among the people who know what they are talking about, and usually a lack of comprehension among every one else (how else would Lodsys have been granted patents for things that are so obvious?).

From the article, a clarification on wealth and ownership:

“While production or creation may be a means of gaining “wealth,” it is not an independent source of ownership or rights. Production is not the creation of new matter; it is the transformation of things from one form to another — the transformation of things someone already owns, either the producer or someone else.

Using your labor and creativity to transform your property into more valuable finished products gives you greater wealth, but not additional property rights. (If you transform someone else’s property, he owns the resulting transformed thing, even if it is now more valuable.) So the idea that you own anything you create is a confused one that does not justify IP.”

But free-market economics doesn’t necessitate the increase of general wealth, does it? And sure, someone can take my writing (I know that’s copyright, but still IP) and make it better, but should they have the right to? I don’t think so. Would you disagree?

Free-market economics definitely doesn’t necessitate the increase of general wealth, no. The article was just addressing that argument as one of the approaches typically used to defend the patent system, and pointing out that it doesn’t even make sense even if increased general wealth is one of your goals.

Copyright falls under the IP category as well, yes, and that’s something I’m still thinking about. The majority of the article is on patents, since the author is a patent lawyer, while copyrights are just sort of lumped in together as being part of the same system. There is a difference to be sure, since patents deal with physical products while copyrights deal with information. I believe there is an aspect of fraud that enters the situation if I were to copy something you wrote while claiming that I wrote it. But if I copy something you wrote and add to it while differentiating between who wrote what, or if I simply redistribute something you wrote and still attribute it all to you, then fraud is not present. This idea allows for infinitely reproducible content to be valued by the market instead of the producer.

This approach is enormously disruptive to the current system of copyright, publishing, and distribution. …which is why I’m still processing it to think about exactly what I would be comfortable with and ready to defend as a producer. I’m inclined to say that I would disagree with your own answer to your question though.

Well, we have the concept of Creative Commons, which is contrary to the article’s statements that it’s impossible to get out of a copyright. Most self-publishing sites allow for this. However, if I wanted to make money off of my writing (and not simply get attributed anytime it was shared), I should have the right to, should I not? The idea of someone just passing on my words (even when attributed) is rather socialist in nature. Taking excerpts to expound, etc. makes sense, but sharing the whole body is contrary to the ideas of liberty, unless you acknowledge that everyone owns all ideas. Now, I can concede that the overly statist ideas and abuses by the RIAA and MPAA are ridiculous, but as a content creator, I reject the premise that people should have access to it without paying at all. A musician puts a lot of time and effort into recording his music and putting out an album. For someone to say that it falls under general domain because they don’t view copyrights as a protectionary guideline is wrong and selfish. However, for the RIAA to sue someone who downloaded 20 songs for $2 million is just about as absurd. So what I’m saying is that there must be a balance.

The article doesn’t state that it’s impossible to get out of copyright, but rather that it is received automatically and hard to get rid of. The article linked from that footnote is here (also an interesting read):

Creative Commons is not copyright-free; it is actually using the copyright system to grant a specific license to everyone that, while it is far more permissive than typical automatic copyright, is not truly free of the system. The linked article discusses the difficulties and uncertainties in trying to place anything truly into the public domain with zero restrictions, due to the way copyright works here and now.

I am always hesitant to say that anyone has the “right” to make money. You certainly have the right to attempt it using legal means, but whether you succeed is not guaranteed. You probably meant it that way, but I’m just trying to avoid potentially dangerous terminology. I agree also with the Biblical principle that a workman is worthy of his wages, that if you do something for someone else in an agreement that you will be paid a certain amount, and you deliver the work, then you should be paid for it as promised.

I think you and I (and most people) would agree on the ownership of physical property, since it’s a scarce resource. If you own it, and I take it without your permission, I’m wrong. Only one person can have any given thing. (Fun thought experiment: what happens if/when somebody invents a working Star-Trek-esque matter-transforming replicator?)

However, ideas and knowledge are infinite by nature. If I tell you something I know, then we both know it. This is true of a math formula, a scientific discovery, a DNA pattern, a story I made up, or a song I wrote. My ideas and knowledge are not lessened personally by sharing them with you. So the question then becomes this: at what point, if any, does an idea or knowledge become an “ownable” thing? It’s a huge gray area unless your stance is either “always” or “never.”

If you and I sit down at Starbucks, and I tell you a fairly involved and clever joke, I think most people would say it is ridiculous for me to then demand payment for hearing it, or to assert that you have no right to repeat it. If it’s part of my upcoming comedy tour, then you might altruistically not tell anyone because you and I are friends and you want my efforts to succeed. But that’s a courtesy you give, not a right that I demand.

Then there is the matter of costs of reproduction which most people also agree on, namely, that if you want a copy of a physical book which I wrote, then you cannot rightly ever demand that physical book for free because of the costs of materials and machinery used to make it. It is a scarce resource, and can only be owned by one person. Whatever tangible value is placed on the actual written contents of the book, at least the physical materials alone warrant some payment.

Back to the main question though: when does a single idea or set of ideas transform into something which you have the right to demand that nobody reproduce or redistribute? It’s either always, never, or somewhere in the middle. But it has to be concrete, defensible, and easily understood if the system is supposed to work.

I play one of my songs at a coffee shop. Someone hears it, likes it, has the resources to record it, and the backing to sell it, while I don’t. Don’t I get screwed in the process? How am I protected from that, if not from some sort of copyright process? I agree that knowledge is infinite in nature, but at the same time, I don’t think your (and the article’s) views on IP being as black and white can succinctly address that issue. I would love to hear a solution, but all I’ve read so far is that granting IP protection is wrong. Okay, I can see why you think it’s wrong, but you haven’t provided a solution. Say you do tell me that joke, and I claim that as my own at the comedy club I’m playing tonight, our friendship may be over, but what you were hoping for, in terms of getting stuff out of a potential tour, is forever lost. You could argue that your delivery may be better than mine, but I may just have screwed your chances at getting a record deal from some label.

This is where the argument breaks down for me. If there is a solution, I’d love to hear, and consider it. If not, it’s simply ideological positioning, and that doesn’t really solve much.

If you play your song at a coffee shop, and someone else hears it, likes it, records it, and sells it, then whether or not that is “screwing” you depends subjectively on what you wanted to accomplish, and objectively on whether you “own” that specific arrangement of notes and words (the core of the debate).

What has demonstrably happened in this situation is that, at absolutely no further cost to you, something you created has been spread among potentially millions of people who were interested enough to want to hear it. That much is definitely true. To some songwriters, this very thing would be a dream come true, because it is a potential source of a huge audience. They are, after all, still the original source of the talent.

What may have also happened is that you lost an opportunity to capitalize on recording and selling that song yourself (though whether it was really an opportunity is debatable, since in your hypothetical description you already said you don’t have the means). But this is not even necessarily the case; different artists record the same song all the time, even in very similar styles, and typically doing so only adds to the perceived value among different groups of fans. Take One Republic’s “Apologize” vs. Timbaland’s version, both of which did well in different arenas.

In the case of the joke example, it is possible that if you blab, I might lose some or all of what I hoped to gain by that comedy tour. I do not believe that it’s the government’s business to punish you for my naivete in sharing that content with someone who would then go repeat it. Now, if I have you sign an NDA before I tell you the joke, that’s a different matter entirely.

As for claiming credit for something you didn’t create, I think legal fraud may come into play, but there I’m not sure. People who fraudulently rise to fame are not often able to maintain the illusion for long. As to whether claiming credit for something you didn’t do is actually the government’s business, I’d much rather keep them out of it as much as possible. If you claim to be the legal originator of something and it can be demonstrated conclusively that you aren’t, then there goes your reputation, and it’s a breach of contract with any contracts you have claimed that on as well, and perjury if you say so in court. Outside of a contract or court where false claims are made and executed, only reputation is at stake–which, in just about any vocation, is critical to long-term success. Reputation (a.k.a. market forces) is certainly the strongest regulatory/preventive influence in an IP-free system.

The main question still comes down to what, if anything, turns some particular bit of knowledge into something that can be owned and legally protected against “theft” (duplication, really) like physical property.

If ALL knowledge is inherently ownable in this way, then every instance of communication creates the possibility of legal action–a terrible idea. There would be an NDA app on everybody’s phone, and friendships would include pre-nup-style contracts.

If NO knowledge is ownable in this way, then there are quite a few content-centered business models that would need to adjust radically (or disappear entirely), but the legal system would also lose an enormous chunk of complexity, and Lodsys et. al. would vaporize into nothingness. Although my position is in flux, this second option (and the paragraph about fraud/reputation) is currently my idea of a solution. I gather you don’t like it though. :-p

If the answer really does lie somewhere between the two, then it can’t afford to be subjective on a case-by-case basis depending on who has more money for clever lawyers. That’s how you get the system we have now. If it isn’t clear and simple, then those who stand to benefit most financially from a draconian IP system will constantly vie for more power and privilege. How would you define the line between “protectable knowledge” vs. “unprotectable knowledge”?

What you’re suggesting would destroy creativity altogether. What is my incentive to create if what I create is not protected? I would still argue that this is far more socialist, even communistic in nature than libertarian. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the anarchistic school of thought in libertarianism. And I find that a very tough ideology to argue.

I don’t think the fraud/reputation model is enough to sustain the fields of creativity. When people are told ‘he stole this idea from so-and-so’, the general consensus is ‘so what?’ I’ve never really heard real concern about this. Just consider the downloading of mp3’s for example. How many people have said this is morally reprehensible? Almost no one except the artists. People were pissed about Metallica’s stance against Napster, but they didn’t consider for a moment that the band made money through their music. And no amount of reputation rhetoric would overturn the damage they suffer by the leaking of their music.

Of course, this is a very simplistic approach and one that avoids talking about the other players in the system, but it’s still valid, considering the fact that someone was a party to theft. I don’t think you’ve established your case enough to say that it wasn’t theft. What you’re referring to (covers and all) go through legal channels. BMI and ASCAP actually make sure that the artist that wrote the original song gets monetary compensation for its use in covers, movies, tv shows and the sort. Now, if you were to recommend a free-market system to replace governmental regulation, I’d be all for it, but what real authority would such a system have?

As for differentiating between protectable and unprotectable knowledge, I would say that a statute of limitations, as is in place, is the best way to distinguish those. Instead of 70 years, as with copyright, the patent approach to 7 years (unless I’m misunderstanding) is a good timeframe. If within 7 years, you haven’t quite capitalized on your work, I don’t think that’s going to suddenly change. Unless, of course, you die, and in that case, you won’t be using the money anyway. What that does, is give you a window to promote your work, make your money, and capitalize on those who would like to build upon what you have. Of course, this would only matter in truly creative fields of arts and literature, as well as technology and education. Humor, for example, serves no real purpose in advancing civilization, and so would not be covered. I’m sure the argument could be made about some of the literature that’s published too, but good or bad, I think it advances the civilization in one of two ways: propelling it by providing a framework to build on, or highlighting what must be avoided at all costs. I’d say that’s my thought on those.

Your claim that such a system would destroy creativity because removing IP also removes the incentive to create is very common, but illogical for a couple of reasons. First, there was no official blanket copyright law anywhere until 1709 in Britain, though there were some similar monopoly-style privileges granted in certain cases and limited geographical spheres as early as 1486. Surely, a great many literary works were written before then; these writers didn’t write books, poems, songs, etc. because of copyright, so creativity can certainly survive without copyright.

Patents as well only began in something like their current form in Italy in 1474, though some similar privileges were granted individually by the King of England as early as 1331 (even these early English “letters of patent” were abused by both the government and inventors though). There was even a documented reference to 1-year patent-like awards to winners of a particular culinary competition in a Greek city ca. 500 BC, though these were short, local, and very narrow. Widespread patent enforcement has only been around for a little over 500 years, and it has taken that long to develop into the system we have today. But new inventions surely didn’t spontaneously begin 500 years ago. Pre-patent-era inventions are a demonstration of creativity surviving despite having no patent protection.

I would also argue, as an aside, that the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries didn’t occur because of patents, but rather despite them. Rapid advancement of technological development is far, far easier to effect when people are not artificially banned from innovating for some period of time.

Now, I admit that some people make new designs or creative works purely because they want to make money. (I would bet that these people, of all creators, are the least successful overall though, since passion for the work typically translates into quality much more than passion for money.) But there are many, many people who are creative either partially or entirely for reasons outside of financial gain. People write books, record songs, and make movies to express what is inside them, or to effect social change, or to make others laugh. People invent things to solve problems, to make life easier for themselves or others, to provide better, faster ways to do what they want to do. Often there is a simultaneous hope for financial gain, and there’s nothing wrong with this. There’s also nothing that says it is impossible to achieve without IP protection from the government.

As counterexamples to your initial claim, I present myself, my wife, the entire open-source software community, and the entire open-source hardware community. I like to write code that I and others can use to solve problems. I like to give a lot of it away for free, and so I do. Also, I’m building the Keyglove because I really love the process and am excited for the end result. I hope to make money off of it, but I don’t believe IP is required to accomplish this, which is why so much of the current design and development process is right up there on the project website. Regardless, I am sure that even if I knew I was the only one to use it, I would still build it for multiple non-financial reasons.

My wife loves to sing, and so she records songs. She happily posts these on her website with no current intention of trying to sell them. She enjoys the experience of singing, the challenges, and the outcome, all outside of financial gain.

Open-source hardware (rapidly growing) and software (already huge) are two sources of vast creativity that have not just begun and grown without the need for IP, but in many cases also explicitly rejected IP protection for ideological reasons. These are people who create things that they want to for their own purposes, and subsequently give it away. (Yes, some open-source stuff is low quality, but certainly not all of it–that is to say, open-source doesn’t guarantee low quality any more than closed-source/IP guarantees high quality.)

So, it is definitely not true that removing IP would destroy creativity.

In the case of musicians, I think it is also worth pointing out that it is generally far more lucrative for a band to focus and capitalize on concerts, merchandise, and uniquely engaging with their fans than it is to try to sell more copies of albums. There are many disappointing reports of exactly how little any given artist or band usually sees from album sales, and there are many interesting reports of how well bands do when they connect with their fans in innovative ways (private concerts, personal responses through social media, contests, encouraging remixes, etc.). Economically, this makes sense. With digital distribution, once a song or album has been recorded, it requires virtually no extra costs to share with anyone who wants to hear it, and many people realize this. It can, from a techincal standpoint, be duplicated almost infinitely with only relatively tiny costs for bandwidth (which is usually at least shared, if not entirely paid for, by the consumer).

Many musicians are now wholeheartedly encouraging this behavior (what is typically labeled “piracy”) because it translates into widespread zero-cost exposure, simultaneously increasing interest among new and existing fans who will then willingly pay money for the unique (scarce) aspects of the music like concerts and merchandise. With the advent and falling cost of digital distribution, there is no economic reason for the RIAA to exist. They don’t even need to be “copyright cops,” since if copyright is truly legitimate, individual artists can stand on their own with just as much real legal clout as anyone else.

As for the political lean of this idea, if knowledge is inherently not ownable, then I don’t see how an IP-free system is either socialist or communist. I also don’t see how which particular “flavor” of libertarianism I subscribe to has any impact on whether a specific idea is more socialist or communist. Now, if knowledge IS ownable, then it would indeed be communistic to say that it belongs to everyone. But that question (ownable vs. not) is the whole point of this debate, right? If it is ownable, then my approach falls apart. If it isn’t, then I think my approach is the end result of accepting that answer.

As to whether reputation is a significant enough market force to deal with fraud, it is difficult to argue outside of hypotheticals because of the system we already have in place, and have had for the entire duration of the country’s existence. If someone claims an idea as their own, they are expected to use the patent and/or copyright system we have to prove it, and if they can’t, then they’re out of luck. Reality is effectively trumped by legal filings, and even if you can eventually prove that you’re right, it usually takes a huge amount of time and money to do so. If there were no IP controls in place, reputation would become a lot more valuable because merely having the smartest lawyers would become worthless.

I would say at least, as I stated above, that absolutely nothing is required to “sustain the fields of creativity.” That’s going to happen no matter what. Incidentally, I think that would STILL happen even if we did have Star-Trek-esque replicators, because creativity is driven by things other than financial gain, and the ability to create is not hampered by the ability to duplicate.

There is certainly a lot of apathy and pragmatism from consumers when it comes to the source of what they consume. If it’s what they want and it’s the right price, they’ll buy it. But “what they want” extends beyond just physical aspects and immediate utility. There is value placed on intangible things like how long something is expected to last before breaking, what the manufacturer’s customer service is like, and even less pragmatic and more emotional things like the work environment at the place where the thing is made. Each of these factors has a different weight in any given consumer’s decision, and sometimes price wins out–but not always. Whether someone destroyed other businesses in the process of emerging into the market will, if it known, be one of these factors people consider. A reputation as a fraud might not have enough impact to prevent a sale, but it might.

If someone is told, as in your example, that “he stole this idea from so-and-so,” and the general consensus is truly nothing more than “so what?”, then there are some things we might learn from that response. First and foremost, I think that response implies something else: “Well, THIS guy actually implemented the idea, which is why I’m looking at (or holding, or reading, or listening to) the end result right now. How is this a bad thing?” Very pragmatic to be sure, but that particular response fits with an IP-free system. If two people have an idea, and one of them implements it, then where is the problem? Is it a problem because one of them implements it before the other one, rather than doing it together? Or because the one who implemented it first didn’t think of it independently?

People automatically respond differently to “he stole my car!” than they do to “he stole my idea!”, despite the continued and long-winded efforts of the IP industry to convince us that they are exactly the same thing. Theft is when I take something that you own, which is particularly evident and provable precisely because you don’t have it anymore. “Stealing” an idea, whatever else it may be, is certainly not exactly the same thing, and at least some of the apathy present in the “so what?” response is because people understand this implicitly, if not explicitly.

An additional response possibly implied by “so what?” is this: “so why aren’t you competing?” In an IP-free system, nobody could be legally prevented from competing with any existing product. Of course, it may not be feasible for multiple reasons for some people who would otherwise enter the market, either as an originator or a competitor. Does that automatically mean that nobody else should be allowed to, because the guy who originally came up with the idea doesn’t have the means to implement it? I think not. That isn’t a free-market system at all.

As for MP3 downloads, I would disagree that it’s mainly the artists who say that downloading MP3s is morally reprehensible (though some of them do for sure, most famously Metallica, and Prince as well). I would say that beyond a shadow of a doubt it is mainly the people who profit most from copyright licensing–the RIAA and similar groups in the US and elsewhere. As mentioned before, the artists usually don’t stand to lose much from piracy due to (1) the pittance they get from album sales and (2) the free exposure it gives them. The Recording Industry often uses bands as part of anti-piracy campaigns to lend some credibility to their message, but I think it is comparatively rare for the bands themselves to be gung-ho about the idea.

Metallica, as a high-profile old-school band firmly entrenched in pre-internet business models, is probably one of the exceptions in terms of how much they make from album sales. From my casual reading of various blog posts, comments, and articles over the past few years, I’d say that the community has still not completely forgiven them for being the frontrunner band against Napster, though their friendly acceptance of Beatallica mash-ups won them some points. I would argue that Metallica lost far more from the attack on Napster (and subsequent disinterest or pointed rejection by fans) than they did in terms of sales lost due to piracy. Reports continue to suggest that the biggest music pirates are also the biggest music purchasers. If you make your hardcore fans (those most likely to look for your music on Napster) decide to hate you instead, they will certainly stop buying your stuff and going to your concerts. As a high-profile band, Metallica stands (or stood) to profit more than most from concerts and merchendise, but they lost a lot of that potential by turning fans into opponents.

As for licensing groups, the function of BMI, ASCAP, and other similar groups is not something that necessarily needs continue. They exist to make sure that certain ideas cannot be “stolen,” but instead that they are always “bought” according to copyright laws. Their existence presupposes the ability of ideas to be owned, which again is the core of the debate. If ideas cannot be owned, then licensing groups have no function. You mention a free-market system to replace government regulation, but that doesn’t really make sense. A system is a free market precisely because there is no government regulation. A free-market replacement wouldn’t have any authority, true, because a free-market replacement for government regulation is exactly nothing. That’s the point.

Your ideas for where to draw the line between protectable and unprotectable knowledge are interesting, but they strike me as very subjective and arbitrary. A statute of limitations would at least be relatively simple to enforce, but does it apply universally? Do you have to claim it, or is it automatically given for any and every thing you create? When does it begin relative to when you claim it, either for works that are already created or for ones you plan to create? How do you identify the “beginning” of an idea? If you have to claim protection, is there a specific window of time when you can do that? Can you transfer this exclusive protection, or share it? Can you revoke it if it’s automatically given? You probably could come up with answers to these without much difficulty, but could you defend those answers well? The reasoning depends on a lot of different factors.

Patents in the US typically last for 20 years, as do European patents. There are a few exceptions (decorative design patents last 14 years, for example), but 20 is the most common. Granted, a 7-year ban on competition and innovation is less harmful than a 20-year ban, but why have one at all? And, on the other side of the argument, what if you’re developing a drug that takes 15 years to study thoroughly? How many other industries would require exceptions to the rule to make everything “fair”? One exception paves the way for a multitude of them, granted to politically motivated and/or wealthy special interest groups. Having no exceptions means that either some industries will be at a disadvantage due to long development times, or everyone will be forced to endure unreasonably long terms to accomodate those few extremes (which we might discover decades later are still not long enough to accomodate some new industry). Having no IP avoids this problem entirely.

The government should not be allowed (or required) to selectively subsidize creators to help them make money. That’s not the government’s job at all. But, even if that were the case, and assuming I agree with you that only truly creative fields should be given special treatment, who gets to make the call for what is “truly creative”? Who gets to say whether something “advances civilization” or not? How much humor can my technical document have in it before it is no longer covered? How much technical information do I have to put in my joke book before it qualifies? This approach leaves things wide open for reinterpretation.

An IP-free system remains as the only approach I can currently defend in good conscience all the way down to the foundation.

Sure, before the eighteenth century there was no copyright, but you have to look at the structure of those communities too. How far do you think a person would get by stealing someone else’s IP? A village over? Reputation was a far greater market-force in those days than it is today. I still disagree with the premise that true creativity doesn’t attach to itself the notion of being compensated. Ask any artist, and they’ll tell you that they would create even if they didn’t make money off of it, but we do need to get paid to pay our bills and the sort. So there is always this innate desire that the products of our creativity will somehow bring us an income. You can’t objectively say what the creative community would or would not do when you’re not a part of it. While building on something is great, I still think that some sort of protection is great to ensure you won’t get screwed over. It may not put an end to creativity, but it does make an artist paranoid about showing off his work.

As far as open platforms go, for all the benefits you list, I have yet to see Linux actually perform well. Sure, Ubuntu is great, but it’s so far lacking in support that you can’t truly work on it without investing far too much time in upkeep. If the free-market actually moves towards IP-protected systems such as Macs and PC’s, I think the open platform argument crumbles pretty quickly. If Linux was far outperforming those two, I’d concede to your arguments, but it isn’t, and so I don’t necessarily see a huge benefit to it. Same goes for Gimp, OpenOffice, and everything else that’s open-sourced. They’re just terrible, and don’t even come close to having the versatility that various closed platforms do. So, why would we want to move away from that?

Reputation is far less valuable today only, I believe, because of the government regulations that shield people from true free-market reprisal. The IP system provides a layer of red tape and huge delays for establishing proof of originality such that reputation is off-loaded onto the legal system instead of evaluated individually. I still maintain that in an IP-free environment, reputation would shoot right back up where it used to be in terms of intangible value. I admit that this is speculation though.

I would even say that reputation could be vastly more powerful today, precisely because information transfer is nearly instant. If you are proven to be a fraud somewhere, then suddenly the entire planet can be alerted within minutes (hooray for Twitter, no?).

I’m not sure how to reconcile two of your statements. First, “I still disagree with the premise that true creativity doesn’t attach to itself the notion of being compensated.” And second, “Ask any artist, and they’ll tell you that they would create even if they didn’t make money off of it…” Those things seem to contradict each other. Of course everyone needs to pay their bills, and it is perfectly legitimate for anyone to market their creative works in whatever way they wish to attempt it. But I maintain that not everyone feels that the act of creation entitles them to compensation from those who use what they created. I know I don’t, and as a programmer and the guy working on the Keyglove, I do think that puts me squarely inside the creative community. I do intend to market the Keyglove, and I hope to make money from it. But I don’t feel entitled to that money.

For open-source hardware and software, you specifically target Linux as one data point that makes you reject my argument. I’m not sure why Linux would have to “far outperform” Windows and OS X in order for you to take open-source software as a serious source of IP-free creativity.

First, a free-market IP-free system does not mean that software developers must by definition give away their source code (or hardware designers give their designs away). It’s perfectly acceptable to do whatever is in your power as a developer/company to make your product difficult to copy. You can also make it easy to copy (or purposely free) and then provide high-quality paid support, which is what Canonical does with Ubuntu. The people who value support can use a free OS and pay for the support they need, and the people who don’t value support can use a free OS and figure it out themselves.

Closed-source does not demand government IP protection. Closed source software is basically just an application of trade secrets, which are perfectly legitimate in an IP-free system. The difference is in what can be done if those trade secrets leak–namely, nothing, instead of government intervention. (Interestingly, if trade secrets are leaked in our current system, they become legally public; there is no government protection. This would be the same consequence of any leak in an IP-free system.)

Second, what does it mean for Linux to “far outperform” other OSes? Linux is at least a huge contender, if not a majority option, in the server market. It absolutely dominates the supercomputer market. It certainly isn’t dominating the desktop/laptop/netbook market, but that doesn’t indicate failure by any means. Whether Linux is a good product for you depends on what you are looking for in an operating system.

Third, my point was not about any particular open project, but only that lots of people create lots of stuff not only without the specific goal of making money, but also with the explicit goal of giving it away. Maybe you don’t personally see a lot of value in the products in question, but a lot of people do. GIMP is no Photoshop, but it’s under constant (open, shared, free) development, and nothing says it can’t become just as friendly as Photoshop. Ubuntu keeps getting more and more polished and intuitive. And really, anything that’s open-sourced is terrible? That’s pretty broad. Open-source software is everywhere (including, according to Apple, “major components of Mac OS X”). Surely there are some things on this list of open-source hardware that you would find truly valuable as well:

Hardware is typically much easier than software to protect practically if you are looking to make money on a design. Yet even these projects, only a few higher-profile ones among many not listed, are being developed specifically so those designs can be given away.

There are definitely some people who create without the belief that they are entitled to compensation from others who use it simply because they created it.

Interesting. I need to do more reading on the types of IP protection. I guess what I was aligning my views with would be more along the lines of trade secrets than patents, per se. I imagined them to be the same, but I guess that’s not the case. I still don’t see myself conceding on copyrights, but I can see how patents could be a messy system if all they’re doing is what Lodsys does. When I look at Apple’s patents, for example, I feel like they’re constantly incorporating them into their products, which is why it makes sense to give them protection. Going back to the original post, however, I think Google’s just a hypocrite though. For them to whine about patents when they lost the bid is just ludicrous. And that’s why I’m glad Microsoft called them out on it :p

He was definitely a willing and courteous debate partner, and I’m pleased by the conversation even though we still don’t agree on everything. It provided us both with a lot to think about. He may come to agree with me more, or I may come to agree with him more; time will tell.

Update August 9, 2011: This just got personal.

I wrote this mainly from an ideological standpoint, though some of my recent actions such as sharing open source software and keeping the Keyglove project very open have been influenced by these same opinions. But by an amazing coincidence, I got an email the day after publishing this post from someone asserting that the Keyglove is infringing their patent, and requesting that I cease all efforts to commercialize the Keyglove and threatening litigation for non-compliance.

The request is entirely serious and, I believe, in no way related to the fact that I posted this the day before he decided to contact me. In fairness, his request was written in as friendly and cordial a manner as possible, given what he was saying. I guess I’m not extremely surprised this happened. In a way, it’s almost encouraging, since it means I’m doing something well enough to be a perceived competitor to another company. Our discussion is only beginning, and the outcome is not guaranteed. I am intentionally avoiding details for this reason. Stay tuned.

I would like to point out that, although I assume he doesn’t see it this way, what he has said from my point of view is this: “I spent a lot of time and money bringing my idea to market. I don’t like the competitive threat you pose, so I’m going to use a government-granted monopoly privilege to shut you down because I want more subsidized opportunity to make money.” (Extra clarification: he did not actually say this. This is my interpretation of what it means to threaten someone with patent litigation. He was much more diplomatic.)

If he’s like many people who believe in the IP system (which he may not be, I’m not sure), then he likely believes that he deserves this “bonus time” to recoup his invested time and money by artificial advantage without fear of market competition. Our society has been conditioned to believe this by hundreds of years of intellectual property law enforcement. The patent system grants him this privilege. I think this is entirely wrong. Of course, what I think and what the law says are currently two very different things, and my opinion doesn’t change what I am required to do (or not do).

I also want to reiterate that everything this person has done so far is entirely within the law as well as tastefully communicated. My comments here are my own interpretation of a personal experience in light of the article written above. I just think it’s interesting that this would happen the day after I originally published this post.

A Conversational Treatise on the Problems with Intellectual Property was last modified: March 14th, 2017 by Jeff Rowberg

What do you do when you come across information you don’t want to hear, don’t like, and/or disagree with?

For some of us, that doesn’t happen very often. It isn’t too difficult to avoid people or media that don’t fit our particular worldview. Whether that means carefully choosing friends, or only listening to certain talk radio stations, or only watching certain TV channels, or only visiting certain websites, or only accepting certain Facebook friends, we are usually pretty good at filtering out the unknown or undesirable according to our own person beliefs.

While I can’t exactly blame people for doing that—it’s an easy way to stay within your “comfort zone”—I do believe it is an unfortunate loss for those people. Information that doesn’t fit with your worldview can’t hurt you unless you are argumentatively weak enough to suffer damage when presented with an opposing viewpoint. If you are afraid of listening, then you probably can’t back up your own beliefs, and you really ought either to be challenged or else to spend some time fleshing out your worldview post haste.

I am not implying that anyone who avoids some information is by definition afraid of hearing it. I know this is not true. You might want to avoid some outside influences because you are still trying to figure out exactly what you believe. You might have already heard a particular viewpoint, and you don’t feel the need to spend time hearing it again at the moment.

However, I propose that if you only think you disagree with a particular viewpoint, but you haven’t heard it in its entirety yet, then it is not a good idea to dismiss it or make any assumptions.

We do this with politics, economics, history, religion, sports, and just about anything else that can be argued in any way. It is chiefly visible with politics, and slightly less so with religion (less only because many people seem to be more willing to tolerate disagreements, though under the surface they are often even more dogmatic by comparison).

If you want to come to a well-founded and logical conclusion on a topic, it is critical to fully listen to people who disagree with you. This should give you an opportunity to identify whether:

Their end goal is good or not

They have thought through their argument

They have logical fallacies in their argument

They have made assumptions with any of their information

I often read articles that I empathize with but do not agree with. I find that when I disagree with someone, it usually isn’t because they want an end result that I don’t (though this does happen occasionally). It’s usually because they have made assumptions that I don’t believe are correct, or they have jumped to a conclusion that doesn’t follow from their foundation. In the latter case, it doesn’t always mean they are wrong, but it does mean they are missing some information and at least may be wrong because of it.

Sometimes though, listening completely to an opposing viewpoint can have a different affect: it can do any one (or more) of the above things to your own argument. There have been many times when I read or heard something that illuminated my own logical fallacies, incorrect assumptions, or missing information. If I had dismissed the opposing argument off-hand just because I thought I understood it or felt sure enough in my own viewpoint, I would still be wrong.

At the same time, I always believe that I could still be wrong.

There are no complex philosophical areas of my life where I am 100% confident that I am right. I am pretty sure in a few cases, but in many others, I only have some basic ideas or opinions that are incomplete. Whether they are right or not, I don’t feel confident enough to argue either way because I simply don’t know. It is in these areas that I am most eager to listen to anyone else’s viewpoint. But even in areas where I do feel confident, I am still always willing to listen to someone who disagrees, because it means I will either further solidify my argument through logical defense, or else I will learn where my argument is weak and then educate myself—possibly changing my opinion as a result.

The moment you believe you have the absolute correct answer to any question, you stop learning new things about it. This can be a problem even in areas as static and concrete as mathematics, which is about as absolute as you can possibly get in this world. People are still discovering new things about mathematics because they never assume that they know 100% of the existing solutions. 99.9%, perhaps, but never 100%.

I am not advocating relativism here, or saying that your worldview (especially religion) must always be in a state of flux. I am only saying that it is a good idea always to keep your mind open to challenges.

If your viewpoint is right, then you will be able to defend it.

If it is incomplete, you will be able to complete it.

And if it is wrong, then you will be willing to change it.

Reading, Hearing, and Processing Information You Don’t Like was last modified: March 14th, 2017 by Jeff Rowberg

I recently had a short discussion with a friend that illuminated a discrepancy in his interpretation of my political views and my own interpretation of them. Or, more simply, I discovered that he thought I believed something that I don’t actually believe. It was an honest mistake on his part, due mostly to a lack of communication on my part, but it got me thinking about how I might be more clear in the future.

Part of the lack of clarity comes from my own lack of complete understanding about politics and economics, something which I am slowly but surely trying to fix as the days go by. But part of it could be helped by simply stating what I believe at this point, since (at least on a foundational level) it is quite simple to explain.

People who know me know that I tend to lean towards what is currently known as Libertarianism. I say “currently” because that label could easily change in the next decade; it certainly has over the last few. However, even that term has so many different variations that it leaves a lot of room for error. To some, it means “liberal” in the old sense; to some, it is almost synonymous with “anarchism.” Take the following helpful (read: confusing) bit of clarification from Wikipedia on anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism:

There is some ambiguity with the use of the terms “libertarianism” and “libertarian” in writings about anarchism. Since the 1890s from France, the term “libertarianism” has often been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States; its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States. Accordingly, “libertarian socialism” is sometimes used as a synonym for socialist anarchism, to distinguish it from “individualist libertarianism” (individualist anarchism). On the other hand, some use “libertarianism” to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as “libertarian anarchism”.

Good grief! This is exactly why I am so hesitant to ascribe to any kind of label whatsoever. Granted, political labels are more prone to misinterpretation than others (“programmer” for example), but even so, it is obviously dangerous to employ the use of such terms when they are so arbitrary and malleable.

So, let’s set the record straight for me. As far as government is concerned, the closest thing I have found to what I currently believe is: Minarchism.

You very well may not have heard of minarchism before. I hadn’t either until a week ago, and upon learning about it, I discovered that it was most accurately represents how I feel about government. Now, before going further, I want to give you a few term definitions, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Communism

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon communal ownership of property. It advocates a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.

Minarchism

In civics, minarchism refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state’s only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. (Such states are sometimes called night watchman states.) Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil, but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.

Okay. Why include the first two terms, you might ask? Mainly for comparison.

Communism and anarchism are similar in many ways, but very different in others. Communism is anarchism with a concern for collective social benefit. Instead of individuals making all their own decisions, groups do it instead. Put into practice, communism is effectively democracy without a state.

Now I will say something that may shock you: I believe communism is an excellent idea. Yes, honestly.

However, it fails to account for one single major flaw that means it can never succeed: human nature. Mankind is not “basically good,” as so many people assume or even proclaim. Mankind is basically selfish. Much of the time, this translates into at least nominal cooperation between people, because that’s the approach that tends to get people what they want. But this is not always the case. History is full of innumerable accounts of people who took a different approach because it appeared better to them—an approach that aimed to achieve great gains at the unfair expense of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of others.

In the absence of consequences and whether as individuals or as groups, almost without fail and barring (some types of) religious influences, humans disregard the welfare of others just so they can gain something more for themselves. This is why pure communism can never work. It is the also the downfall of many governments, communist or otherwise, even when there are so-called “checks and balances” put into place. Our own government here in the US was created specifically to combat corruption. The three branches—judicial, legislative, and executive—were given different powers and competing interests precisely to create a deadlock situation rather than let something nefarious happen. The governmental architects knew what political power does to men, and built a government accordingly. As a result, even according to critics, our Constitution is one of the most well-crafted and outstanding foundational government documents in history.

But, as is painfully apparent, it’s not perfect, and it’s suffered many setbacks and alterations for the worse throughout its existence. The lust for power is very, very strong, and those who seek it always seem to find ways to circumvent the limits put in place to stop them.

Communism is extremely susceptible to this. Anarchism is less so, because it doesn’t assume that multiple people will act for their common benefit, but it still completely ignores human nature and assumes that everything will turn out okay since everyone is striving for the same level of control, and it will balance out on the whole. But people form cliques with dominating leaders, leading to factions and mini-dictatorships within the system (if indeed you can call anarchy a system).

So, why minarchy? How is it better?

As I’ve mentioned before, my current understanding of government is that it should adhere to (and enforce) what Richard Maybury calls the Two Laws: (1) Do all you have agreed to do, and (2) do not encroach on other persons or their property. These fundamental laws come from old English Common Law and form the basis for contract law and some criminal and tort law.

Government should exist solely and primarily to enforce these two laws. It should not exist for any other reason, and its power should be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish this goal.

This is what minarchism is. From the summary definition, it says that “the state’s only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud.” Also, it “defend[s] the existence of the state as a necessary evil, but assert[s] that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.”

It defends ultimate personal liberty as long as you are not breaking one of the Two Laws, and it provides for defense (not excluding a trained army and, if necessary, wars of defense). But that’s all.

No public education.
No public healthcare.
No Social Security.
No government welfare.
No government-mandated currency.
No socialized banks.
No FDA, FAA, or FCC.
No bailouts.

All of those areas that we have become accustomed to having Federal hands in—appreciated or otherwise—would be handled by the private sector instead, in a true free-market system. Such a government (or economy) has as far as I know never really been tried in all of history. But it sure makes for a good target.

The existence of the state is a necessary evil precisely because of human nature. Consider this: let’s say that 98% of humans would cooperate on their own without the existence of a state, simply because it’s the easiest way to get at least most of what they want out of life. Without a state, the remaining 2% will fill the power vacuum at the earliest opportunity, and nothing would be in place to stop them unless the 98% recognize what is going on and band together (i.e. into a pseudo-state) to stop them.

If those 98% recognize that the 2% are a dangerous wildcard and potential threat, then they can create a minimal state to establish defense mechanisms against such a power grab. The state requires minimal participation (except by a relative few) and some funding through taxes or contracted payments to keep it running and effective. The government is there for protection, and incapable of anything else. It is effectively a social insurance policy against economic, political, and physical disruption.

What about our beloved republic? Especially the constitutional republic that has managed to withstand so much over the last 220 years—despite taking a significant beating? Well, actually, you can certainly have a constitutional minarchist republic. In it’s purest sense, there is nothing mutually exclusive about these two political ideas. Here’s Wikipedia’s intro definition of a republic:

A republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government, and in which the head of government is not a monarch. The word “republic” is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as “a public affair”.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that a minarchy is a very pure, minimal version of a republic! The people would have to retain supreme control over the government to ensure its efficiency keep the inner workings transparent.

The minarchist government I described a few paragraphs above could be very similar to the government we have now, with one exception: the Constitution defining such a government would need to be considerably more limited than ours. It is quite obvious how often and through which loopholes our current governing document has been taken advantage of. To revise it and start over would be one heck of a social experiment, that’s for sure.

So there you have it. I am a minarchist. I am not fundamentally against government, or taxes, or even war. I am just for something much, much more limited in power than what we have.

Communism, Anarchism, and Minarchism was last modified: March 14th, 2017 by Jeff Rowberg

I’ve recently re-developed interest in Richard Maybury‘s book series on history, law, politics, and economics. I say “re-developed” because I’ve always been interested ever since I first heard of them—sometimes more and sometimes less—but I never actually made time to read them. I know that they are an incredible resource of clear and concise knowledge. Richard Maybury always succeeds in presenting a logical thought process from start to finish using language and analogies that are a pleasure to read and not difficult to understand. While I wouldn’t say he makes history and economics fun, his delivery is the best and most honest I’ve seen so far.

I don’t get any kind of kickback from recommending these, but I’m going to do it anyway. The following summaries come from the books themselves. The order is a little bit arbitrary, as the actual series is not numbered, but this is the recommended order. The 2nd one in the series (Penny Candy) is the one to get for a basic intro to economic principles.

All of these books are suitable for junior high students. They are written as a series of short letters from “Uncle Eric” to his nephew/niece Chris. The books include a glossary of potentially unknown terms. All of these are worth reading. You will not find another resource quite like them.

#1: Uncle Eric Talks About Personal Career and Financial Security

Uncle Eric’s Model introduced. Models (or paradigms) are how people think; they are how we understand our world. To achieve success in our careers, investments, and every other part of our lives, we need sound models. These help us recognize and use the information that is important and bypass that which is not. In this book, Mr. Maybury introduces the model he has found most useful. These are explained in WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PENNY CANDY?, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO JUSTICE?, and THE CLIPPER SHIP STRATEGY.

#2: Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?

The economic model explained. The clearest and most interesting explanation of economics aound. Learn about investment cycles, velocity, business cycles, recessions, inflation, money demand, and more. Contains “Beyond the Basics,” which supplements the basic ideas and is included for readers who choose to tackle more challenging concepts. Recommended by former U.S. Treasury Secretary William Simon and many others.

#3: Whatever Happened to Justice?

The legal model explained. Explores America’s legal heritage. Shows what is wrong with our legal system and economy, and how to fix it. Discusses the difference between higher law and man-made law, and the connection between rational law and economic prosperity. Introduces the Two Laws: 1) Do all you have agreed to do. 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

#4: Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused?

Political labels. What do they mean? Liberal, conservative, left, right, democrat, republican, moderate, socialist, libertarian, communist – what are their economic policies, and what plans do their promoters have for your money? Clear, concise explanations. Facts and fallacies.

#5: Ancient Rome: How It Affects You Today

This book explains what happens when a society ignores the model. Are we heading for fascism like ancient Rome? Mr. Maybury uses historical events to explain curent events, includng the wars in the former Soviet Empire, and the legal and economic problems of America today. With the turmoil in Russia and Russia’s return to fascism, you must read this book to understand your future. History does repeat.

#6: Evaluating Books: What Would Thomas Jefferson Think About This?

Most books, magazines, and news stories are slanted against the principles of America’s Founders. Often the writers are not aware of it, they simply write as they were taught. Learn how to identify the bias so you can make informed reading, listening, and viewing choices.

#7: The Money Mystery

The first sequel to WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PENNY CANDY? Some economists refer to velocity, others to money demand. However it is seen, it is one of the least understood forces affecting our businesses, careers, and investments – it is the financial tigger. This book discusses precautions you should take and explains why Federal Reserve officials remain so afraid of inflation. THE MONEY MYSTERY prepares you to understand and avoid pitfalls in your career, business, and investments.

#8: The Clipper Ship Strategy

The second sequel to WHATEVER HAPENED TO PENNY CANDY? Conventional wisdom says that when the government expands the money supply, the money descends on the economy in a uniform blanket. This is wrong. The money is injected into specific locations causing hot spots or “cones” such as the tech bubble of the 1990s. Mr. Maybury explains his system for tracking and profiting from these cones. Practical nuts-and-bolts strategy for prospering in our turbulent economy.

#9: The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How It Affects You Today

Mr. Maybury shows that events on the other side of the world a thousand years ago can affect us more than events in our hometowns today. This book explains the ten-century battle the U.S. has entered against the Islamic world. It predicted the events that began unfolding on September 11, 2001. It helps you understand the thinking of the Muslims in the Mideast, and why the coming oil war will affect investment markets around the globe. In the last three decades this war has been the cause of great shocks to the economy and investment markets, including the oil embargoes, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Iraq-Kuwait war, the Caucasus Wars over the Caspian Sea oil basin, and the September 11th attack–and it is likely to remain so for decades to come. Forewarned is forearmed. To successfully manage your career, business, and investments, you must understand this war.

#10: World War I: The Rest of the Story Story and How It Affects You Today

The explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898 was the beginning of a chain reaction that continues today. Mr. Maybury presents an idea-based explanation of the First World War. He focuses on the ideas and events that led to World War I, events during the war, and how they led to World War II. Includes the ten deadly ideas that lead to war.

#11: World War II: The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today

An idea-based explanation of the war. Focuses on events in the Second World War and how our misunderstanding of this war led to America’s subsequent wars, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Iraq-Kuwait War, and the “War on Terror” that began September 11, 2001.

You can buy these books as a set for $164.95 shipped, or individually from the same page. Again, I get nothing from recommending this, but I wholeheartedly do so anyway. I only wish there were electronic and audiobook versions available for sale as well.

What do you think when you hear the term “Left-wing Liberal”? How about “tea party”? “Right-wing extremist”? “Die-hard Republican”? “Card-carrying member of the NRA”? “Reactionary”? “Obstructionist”? “Moderate”? “Libertarian”? “Independent”? “Neocon”? No matter what you believe, or what your personal political affiliation is (if you have one), the odds are good that those terms conjure up quite a few different images, some of which are bad.

While some of these kinds of labels are meant to be derogatory caricatures of the people we disagree with, many of them are not. The problem is that even the more “harmless” of these words mean significantly different things to the people who use them regularly. A self-identifying Republican thinks “Republican” is a good thing, while a self-identifying Democrat thinks “Republican” is a bad thing. Say the word in front of both of them, and two very different mental pictures will form in their respective heads. From a linguistic and logical standpoint this means that these words are fundamentally useless for worthwhile communication because their meanings have become arbitrary—not depending on context, which would still allow usefulness, but instead depending only on the personal meaning ascribed by the one using it.

I subscribe to many different political or environmental email newsletters. I don’t agree with most of them, but I like to read through the agendas of different organizations just so I get a well-rounded idea of what’s going on around the country. It’s saddening to me that the content from the organization I disagree with most (MoveOn) is usually the least full of distracting propaganda. Don’t get me wrong, they do have many other more subtle forms of propaganda. But the most blatant name-callers of all of them are often the ones that I agree with in principle. I just can’t stand their method of delivery, and I doubt their credibility because they resort to that kind of communication.

Political labels allow for an easy way for group members to identify themselves. However, I am virtually certain that most of the people who consider themselves part of a large group (such as MoveOn or, say, the Tea Party) either don’t agree with 100% of the agenda, or more likely don’t know 100% of the agenda and so cannot truly agree or disagree across the board. It is challenging even among family members to find someone who completely agrees with everything you believe.

Labels create a simple but inaccurate group identity among ideological subscribers, while at the same time they create a shallow but intense divisiveness between “believers” and “non-believers.” People often treat their own political beliefs like religious dogma and use opposite labels on their opponents as spiteful, condescending pejoratives. This makes it easy to fall prey to a logical fallacy commonly known as a straw-man argument. A straw-man argument entails the misrepresentation of the position of our opponent for the purpose of easily shooting it down. Such a position is easy to defeat, but it is not a true victory because we have ascribed viewpoints that the opponent does not really hold. The reality is that people that identify with an opposing group often have worthwhile points, and they are rarely as idiotic as they are made out to be either in our minds or our conversation.

Corruption, deception, and ignorance admittedly run rampant among politicians and their constituents. But when you listen to or talk to others about politics, try to keep in mind what effect some of those seemingly benign labels have, and remember that just because they call themselves something else doesn’t automatically mean they are less than you in any way.

Political Labels and Logical Fallacies was last modified: March 14th, 2017 by Jeff Rowberg

In light of the fact that Monday is Memorial Day, and with people’s thoughts being directed towards those who have died fighting in wars, I propose a thought experiment about the idea of a Just War. I directly lifted the following summaries of Just War ideas from Wikipedia, because they seem clear enough:

Jus ad bellum (Right to Wage War)

Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”

Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.

Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

Jus in bello (Conduct During Wars)

Distinction: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians.

Proportionality: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).

Military necessity: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

Jus post bellum (Ending a War)

Just cause for termination: A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.

Right intention: A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.

Public declaration and authority: The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.

Discrimination: The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Truth and reconciliation may sometimes be more important than punishing war crimes.

Proportionality: Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.

Memorial Day was unofficially started not long after the end of the Civil War in 1845, though it wasn’t declared to be an official Federal holiday until 1967. In light of that, here is a list of the major U.S. military operations since then—this list is from the above linked Wikipedia article, but I have removed most of the “small” operations:

1968 – Laos & Cambodia. U.S. starts secret bombing campaign against targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos. The bombings last at least two years.

1982-1983 – Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On September 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.

1983 – Grenada. Citing the increased threat of Soviet and Cuban influence and noting the development of an international airport following a bloodless Grenada coup d’état and alignment with the Soviets and Cuba, the U.S. launches Operation Urgent Fury to invade the sovereign island nation of Grenada.

1983-89 – Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.

1983 – Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.

1987-88 – Persian Gulf. After the Iran-Iraq War resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased US joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf, called Operation Earnest Will. President Reagan reported that US ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 21 (Iran Ajr), October 8, and October 19, 1987 and April 18 (Operation Praying Mantis), July 3, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988. It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.

1989-90 – Operation Just Cause, Panama – On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered US military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn. Around 200 Panamanian civilians were reported killed. The Panamanian head of state, General Manuel Noriega, was captured and brought to the U.S.

1990 – Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the US armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option. American hostages being held in Iran.

1991 – Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm (Persian Gulf War). On January 16, 1991, U.S. forces attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait in conjunction with a coalition of allies and under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991.

1991 – Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.

1992 – Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.

1992-2003 – Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces “no fly zones” over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. (See also Operation Southern Watch)

1992-95 – Somalia. “Operation Restore Hope” Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)

1993–Present – Bosnia-Herzegovina.

1993 – Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.

1994-95 – Operation Uphold Democracy, Haiti. U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.

2001 – Afghanistan. War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and “begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters.”

2003 – 2003 invasion of Iraq leading to the War in Iraq. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and undermining Saddam Hussein.

2004 – War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.

2006 – Pakistan. 17 people including known Al Qaeda bomb maker and chemical weapons expert Midhat Mursi, were killed in an American MQ-1 Predator airstrike on Damadola (Pakistan), near the Afghan border.[9][10] However, statements by U.S. and Pakistani officials reported in September, 2007 disclosed that that none of those al-Qaeda leaders perished in the strike and that only local villagers were killed.

2009 – Pakistan, In relation to efforts in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces struck an insurgent encampment in the Northern mountains, killing 24, with missiles fired from an unmanned aerial assault vehicle.

What on earth have we been up to? And, much more importantly, why? Answering those questions could take more than a lifetime, so I won’t really try right now. But think about Just War principles, and think about the wars or individual battles that you might actually know something about. Do the principles line up with history? How many things have we done that we had no business doing?

Or, to put it another way:

Is the idea of a “just war” as describe above missing any principles?

Are any of the existing principles incorrect?

Can you think of a war that you consider “just” that wouldn’t be classified that way by the above ideas?

Spend some time answering those questions, and you might have a more pensive Memorial Day amidst all the barbecues and such.

Memorial Day and Just War Principles was last modified: March 14th, 2017 by Jeff Rowberg